COST BITES 355: VARYING A BUDGET (3): PROPOSED VARIATIONS DISALLOWED BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MADE “PROMPTLY”
This is the final part of today’s trilogy considering applications to vary costs budget. We have already seen that the judge determined that many issues in the case were “significant developments” which could, in theory, lead to a variation of…
COST BITES 354: VARYING A BUDGET (2) HOW WAS THE ISSUE OF “SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS” CONSIDERED IN PRACTICE?
The previous post looked at the judge’s consideration of the principles relating to variations in a costs budget. Here we look at how this worked out in practice with the judge considering whether various issues amounted to “significant developments”. Some…
COST BITES 353: VARYING A COSTS BUDGETS (1): THE PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED: WHAT IS MEANT BY “SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS”?
We are taking a detailed look at a judgment that deals with proposals to vary costs budgets. This post will look at the judge’s considerations of the rules, principles and guidance that relates to variation of budgets. Later posts will…
COST BITES 336: MOST OF THESE THINGS ARE NOT “SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS” AND DO NOT JUSTIFY A VARIATION IN THE BUDGET: THE JUDGE NOT PERSUADED ON THE USE OF LEADING COUNSEL, NEW SOLICITORS WITH HIGHER HOURLY RATES AND THINGS MISSED FROM THE FIRST BUDGET
Here we have a detailed analysis of a defendant’s application to vary (that is more than double) its original costs budget. At the PTR stage the defendant applied to double its costs budget, some of this was allowed, most was…
COST BITES 173: VARYING A COSTS BUDGET “AFTER THE EVENT”: IF THE APPLICATION WAS NOT “PROMPT” THE BUDGET WILL NOT BE VARIED
We are looking again at the decision in Khokan v Nirjhor (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 1873 (KB), this time on the issue of costs budgeting. The judge considered the defendant’s budget in unusual circumstances. The claimant’s case had been struck…
CLAIMANTS’ APPLICATION TO VARY COSTS BUDGET DISMISSED: A SELF – IMPOSED DIFFICULTY DID NOT (ON THESE FACTS) AMOUNT TO A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT
In Simpsons (Preston) Ltd & Anor v MS Amlin Underwriting Ltd [2023] EWHC 1370 (Comm) HHJ Pearce refused the claimants’ application to vary the costs budget in relation to disclosure. The reason the application was made because the claimants had…
APPLICATIONS TO VARY A COSTS BUDGET: SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS, PROMPTNESS AND CPR 3.15A: A JUDGMENT THAT EVERY CIVIL LITIGATOR HAS TO READ
In Persimmon Homes Ltd & Anor v Osborne Clark LLP & Anor [2021] EWHC 831 (Ch) Master Kaye provides a “cut out and keep” guide for anyone involved in attempting to vary a costs budget. There are important points made…
UNANTICIPATED SIZE OF DISCLOSURE WAS AN “UNANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT”: UPWARD REVISION OF COST BUDGET ALLOWED
In Al-Najar & Ors v The Cumberland Hotel (London) Ltd [2018] EWHC 3532 (QB) Master Davison allowed an upward variation of the cost budget. The scale of disclosure given by the defendant could not have been anticipated and it was reasonable…
You must be logged in to post a comment.