![Willis v GWB Harthills LLP & Others [2025] EAT 79, His Honour Judge James Tayler, Rule 76 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, Rule 84 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, Rule 74 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024, Rule 82 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024, Stage 1 Threshold Conduct, Stage 2 Discretionary Decision, Stage 3 Quantum Decision, Ability to Pay, Costs Discretion, Unreasonable Conduct, Capital Assets in Costs Assessment, Family Home Valuation, Equity Release, Joint Ownership of Property, Detailed Assessment, Standard Basis, Profit Share Entitlement, PHI Payments, Costs Capping, Broad-Brush Assessment, Means Assessment, Proportionality of Costs, Discretionary Factors in Costs Awards, Effect on Third Parties, Honesty of Party, Costs Application Principles, Conduct of Proceedings, Stage 4 Bowel Cancer Context, Zoopla Valuation Evidence, Stage 3 Costs Quantum, Shields Automotive Ltd v Greig, Howman v The Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn, Jilley v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Trust, Arrowsmith v Nottingham Trent University [2012] ICR 159, Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham (No 2) [2013] IRLR 713, Doyle v North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, County Court Detailed Assessment, Costs Decision in Employment Tribunals](https://tmclegal.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Shutterstock_351049592-80x80.webp)
Following his recent decision in Worcester v Hopley [2024] EWHC 2181 (KB), Master Thornett again addressed the consequences of maintaining an “unrealistic” costs budget in Jenkins v Thurrock Council [2024] EWHC 2248 (KB). The case arose from a personal injury claim valued at £200,000+ where the claimant’s budget of £944,537.16 (including incurred costs of £358,762.51) was deemed to be “unrealistic and inappropriately ambitious“. Despite opportunities for revision following the CCMC in June 2024 and prior to a seperately listed Costs Management Hearing listed to take place on 17 July 2024, the claimant offered only “slightly reduced figures”. Following aggregate reductions of almost 50% at the July hearing (excluding Trial Prep, Trial and AR/Settlement, which were deferred) the court considered whether to deviate from the usual “costs in the case” order. Master Thornett ultimately ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs of the Costs Management Hearing and reduced the claimant’s recoverable costs management costs by 35%.
“…subsequent specific Costs Management hearings are not always inevitable. Many parties have agreed their respective budgets by the time of the Case Management Conference. Many still do so subsequently, such that the Costs Management hearing as provided becomes unnecessary and is vacated. Under no circumstances can parties therefore assume that because a hearing has been listed, and because that hearing is interlinked with case management, that the order at the next hearing will be bound to be “in the case”. The resources and time of both the court and other parties, as with any hearing, always have to be considered by all those participating; and, critically, throughout the period leading to the hearing. In short, a continuing realistic appraisal (as is required before any hearing) why the hearing is proceeding and whether, having regard to the Overriding Objective, a more costs efficient alternative approach is possible.”
JENKINS V THURROCK COUNCIL [2024] EWHC 2248 (KB)
Summary of the key figures:
It’s worth noting that the Claimant’s initial budget was much higher (£1,195,754.26 for a full trial or £730,396.28 to a second CCMC), which was later reduced to £944,537.16 after the Case Management Hearing. These reductions and the final allowed amounts demonstrate the court’s finding that the Claimant’s initial budget was unrealistic and disproportionate.
Chronology of relevant events:
“Mr Asbury describes how, in preparation for the 11 July 2024 hearing, a further discussion took place with the Claimant’s costs lawyer on 9 July 2024 in attempt to negotiate. The Claimant was invited to, and did, present some counter-budget proposals in writing. However, the counter-figures still did not reflect the Defendant’s position on proportionality neither, as it transpired, the court’s similar views at the subsequent hearing. No further discussions took place, the Claimant in effect taking the view that his budget was reasonable and that the Defendant’s counter submissions had sufficiently little currency to deserve any further discussion.
“At the hearing on 17 July 2024, the court was entirely satisfied that the Claimant was maintaining an unrealistic and inappropriately ambitious budget, having regard to the requirements of the case. Despite the Claimant having attempted to offer slightly reduced figures, the court found that the Defendant’s submissions as to proportionality remained far closer to what, on any objective terms, could be submitted as within a reasonable range. Further, this was in respect of the management of such phases the court decided could be costs managed, despite the polarity between the figures.
“Critically, the court concluded that that the high figures proposed for Trial Preparation and Trial phases would accordingly be better deferred to a date closer to the Trial Window, at which time the court might be in a more informed position, on the evidence as had by then transpired, to gauge whether the Claimant’s estimated costs totalling £204,742.98 had any greater foundation than was apparent at the Costs Management Hearing.”
The underlying claim:
“In short, the level of sophistry of the case is – without of course being insensitive to importance of the claim to the Claimant personally – towards the lower end of claims as case and costs managed in the High Court and entirely typical of claims case and cost managed in the District Registries. The point here being that, at least according to the Statements of Case, there is nothing obviously to suggest why this case should see significantly high estimated legal costs. Neither did the Case Management directions engaged through to trial engage anything more (or less) than a typical approach to budgeting. In seeking substantial future legal costs, the Claimant therefore had a reasonably high burden to explain and justify his position at the costs management hearing.”
“In short, that the court is entitled to take a rounded overview when considering the costs of the budgeting exercise, drawing upon and applying its experience of costs management in the context of the particular case in hand. Accordingly, the court is as much entitled to interpret and apply factors such as success and conduct featured within r.44.2 following a Costs Management Hearing as it is at conclusion of any other hearing. Parties are not in principle immune from costs considerations in costs management hearings.” [2]
“My conclusion is that the Claimant had presented and maintained an unrealistic and disproportionate approach to his estimated costs in the context of the demands and requirements of this case. He continued to do so despite the opportunity to modify his position in response respectively to the Defendant’s first Precedent R, observations made at the Case Management Conference and then overtures made by the Defendant during an intervening period before the Costs Management Hearing, a period as prescribed by the court specifically to facilitate appropriate discussion and negotiation.” [18]
Based on this finding, the judge determined that the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs of the Costs Management Hearing:
“The hearing on 17 July 2024 therefore could well have been avoided had a more reasonable modified approach been taken by the Claimant. If and in so far as the hearing should be taken as having still been necessary, then in terms of success and conduct I see no reason why the Claimant should be the beneficiary of a “costs in the case” direction. In real terms, the fact that liability is admitted means he is likely to receive his costs despite the events I describe.
“I instead direct, for the reasons discussed, that the Claimant pay the Defendant’s costs of and occasioned by the Costs Management Hearing on 17 July 2024.” [19-20]
Furthermore, the judge decided to cap the claimant’s recoverable costs for preparing multiple budgets:
“I am satisfied that there is a further relevant point on costs that should be recognised: the extent to which the Claimant’s costs of preparing several budgets through to the hearing on 11 July 2024 ought to be capped having regard to the approach he adopted.
“I accept that some costs would always have to be incurred in preparation but conclude these, if the Claimant becomes a receiving party, should not be to an extent that incorporates crafting an inappropriate and unrealistic approach. The costs of the Claimant’s costs management as assessed, to the extent recoverable having regard to the consequences of the order at Paragraph 20 above, should be reduced by 35%.” [21-22]
COSTS MANAGEMENT | PROPORTIONALITY | UNREALISTIC BUDGET | CPR 44.2 | OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE | CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE | PRECEDENT R | INCURRED COSTS | ESTIMATED COSTS | MASTER THORNETT | WORCESTER V HOPLEY | COSTS IN THE CASE | COSTS OF COSTS MANAGEMENT | HIGH COURT | KING’S BENCH DIVISION | PERSONAL INJURY | DETAILED ASSESSMENT | SUMMARY ASSESSMENT
