Master Nagalingam directs a claimant to redraw his bill of costs of almost £1m in phases to comply with the requirements of CPR 47 PD 5.8(8). The claimant had argued that due to considerable developments in the case, the case managing court had accepted that updated costs budgets were necessary and these had duly been prepared and served. However, the revised budgets did not reach the stage of a costs management hearing and were never approved. Notwithstanding, the claimant argued, as the revised budgets were ordered by the Court the initial approved budget was deemed to be superseded, there was therefore no approved budget in place and CPR 47 PD 5.8(8) did not apply. Thus a phased bill of costs was not required. The Master disagreed.
Mr Justice Jacobs held that a Master was wrong to approve specific hours in a costs budget, subject to later argument on hourly rates, rather than overall figures for each phase, finding that “[this had] the effect of removing the flexibility of the party in deciding how to spend the budget in the light of the way the case develop[ed]”
Mr Justice Walker allowed an appeal in part against the imposition of a sanction under CPR 3.14 which limited the claimant’s costs budget to applicable court fees only following the filing of a costs budget which failed to deal with the trial and trial preparation phases. The parties had agreed all other phases up to and including a proposed second CMC or PTR and it was proposed that subsequent directions and costs budget figures be left over to be dealt with at that point. Master Thornett did not accept the parties’ proposed course and determined that in failing to file a complete budget the claimant had failed to comply with CPR 3.13, thus invoking CPR 3.14. The consequence of Walker J’s decision on appeal was to disapply the sanction in respect of those parts of the budget which had been completed and agreed but to leave in place the CPR 3.14 sanction in respect of both the trial and trial preparation phases, thus depriving the claimant of the ability to recover any costs in relation to those phases.
Picken J refuses permission to appeal an order rejecting an application to revise a costs budget under s7.6 PD3E, finding that a doubling in value of the claim did not amount to a significant development
Chief Master Marsh considers an application to revise a defendants’ costs budget under Para 7.6 of Practice Direction 3E (PD3E) in light of seven “significant developments” and examines the practicalities of such an application, in particular the treatment of costs already incurred since the original budget, as well as applications made under Para 7.9 PD3E
The High Court determined that costs budgets of £1.5m in respect of a claim with a potential value of £80-120,000 were disproportionate, notwithstanding the wider issues involved.
Master Rowley tackles a number preliminary points in a detailed assessment arising from a complex clinical negligence claim, including an alleged mis-certification of the claimant’s budget giving rise to an application under CPR 44.11, level of success fee and hourly rates and ‘good reason to depart’.
Master Rowley becomes the latest costs judge to tackle the meaning of ‘good reason to depart’ from an approved costs budget on detailed assessment, specifically in relation to hourly rates and valuation of claim.
An examination of the role and relevance of an approved costs budget on an application under CPR 44.2(8) for a payment on account of costs.
On a detailed assessment of costs a reduction in hourly rates of the incurred costs is not a ‘good reason’ to depart from the budget in respect of the budgeted (future) costs.