The King’s Bench Division’s decision in Various Claimants v Mercedes-Benz Group AG and Others [2026] EWHC 1335 (KB) addresses the appropriate ratio of legal fees to expert fees in costs budgeting for multi-party litigation.
Background
The NOx Emissions Group Litigation comprises 13 Group Litigation Orders covering claims by various claimants against vehicle manufacturers and dealers relating to alleged emissions irregularities in diesel vehicles. The lead GLO was made against Mercedes, with additional lead GLOs (“ALGLOs”) against Ford, Nissan, Renault and Peugeot-Citroen. The remaining GLOs are referred to as Non-ALGLOs.
Two previous Costs Management Hearings had produced detailed judgments and Costs Management Orders. At the second hearing in July 2025, two phases were adjourned: the ADR/settlement phase of the Second General budget, and the expert evidence phase within Tranche 3. The third Costs Management Hearing took place on 16 April 2026. Following that hearing, the court granted permission for experts in five disciplines to give written and oral evidence at the quantum trial, though the scope of issues was reduced. The parties were given a further opportunity to revise their budgets in light of those decisions. The judgment was handed down on 4 June 2026 by Mr Justice Constable and Senior Costs Judge Rowley.
Both previous judgments had criticised the claimants’ estimated costs in strong terms. At the third hearing, reassurances were again given on behalf of the claimants that the court’s earlier criticisms had been taken on board, particularly regarding the layers of solicitor representation. However, that reassurance was undermined by the claimants’ own counsel accepting that the extent of counsel time, particularly in relation to the experts’ phase, could not be justified and would no doubt be reduced. The court observed that, given that concession, it was not apparent why realistically reduced figures had not been put forward before the hearing.
Issues Before the Court
The court was required to assess and approve budgeted costs for two phases left outstanding from the second hearing. The first was the experts’ phase within Tranche 3, covering five separate expert disciplines. The second was the ADR/settlement discussions phase of the Second General budget, covering the period from 1 April 2026 to the end of the quantum trial in December 2026.
Within the experts’ phase, the court had to grapple with a recurring structural issue: the ratio of legal fees to expert fees. The court had previously commented on the inappropriate level of lawyer time being spent in the curation of expert evidence, and the same concern arose again. The claimants’ budgets for several disciplines reflected what the court described as a “1:1:1” ratio between profit costs, counsel’s fees and experts’ fees, meaning that the total legal spend was approximately twice the amount being charged by the experts themselves. The court had to determine, for each discipline, what level of legal input was reasonable and proportionate relative to the expert work being undertaken.
A further structural issue concerned the claimants’ practice of suppressing profit costs figures to bring them into line with the other two elements. The court noted that this did not address the underlying concern about the overall ratio, and if anything reinforced the view that the legal team’s input into the expert evidence was excessive.
For the ADR/settlement phase, the court was required to assess the claimants’ revised budget of approximately £1.98 million. The defendants’ combined budget for this phase had been agreed by the claimants in its entirety. The court also had to address specific disputes in relation to individual GLOs.
The Parties’ Positions
Claimants
The claimants maintained that their revised budgets, produced following the hearing, reflected the court’s decisions on the scope of expert evidence and were reasonable and proportionate.
In relation to Loss Assessment, the claimants submitted that the list of issues approved by the court encompassed the majority of the issues in their original proposal, together with some further issues and complexities, and that the budgets had not otherwise been reduced beyond a moderate reduction in counsel’s fees.
In relation to Mechanical Engineering, the claimants pointed to the reductions made following the hearing, which they attributed to the removal of the initial joint expert meeting and joint statement, counterbalanced to some extent by the permission given to the defendants to serve additional factual witness statements. The claimants also highlighted the particular demands of the Mercedes GLO given the number of core sample vehicles involved, and the Nissan/Renault GLO which they said justified a higher budget given the involvement of two separate original equipment manufacturers. The claimants relied on the defendants’ own correspondence, in a different context, asserting significant differences in the technical issues facing the manufacturers.
On the 1:1:1 ratio point, Mr Barclay informed the court that the profit costs figures had been reduced to bring them into line with the other two elements, on the basis that this reflected what was reasonable and proportionate in accordance with the statement of truth on the budgets. He characterised this as the solicitors taking a reduction rather than as reverse engineering to produce aligned figures.
In relation to Consumer Behaviour, the claimants submitted that the reduction in scope did not materially affect the work required. For Software Engineering, the claimants said the budgets had been reduced to reflect the fact that no separate reports were required, but that the costs for joint meetings and joint statements would be greater than originally budgeted. For UK Vehicle Valuation, the claimants submitted that the single remaining issue had been significantly expanded and encompassed some of the issues originally set out elsewhere, resulting in only a moderate adjustment to the proposed budget.
Defendants
Numerous defendants’ counsel took aim at the amounts claimed for solicitors’ profit costs, counsel’s fees and experts’ charges. The similarity between them led to the description of them being incurred in a “1:1:1” ratio. After numerous attacks upon the unlikely nature of the similar figures being spent by all concerned, the claimants’ explanation that profit costs figures had been reduced to match the other two elements was described by the court as not reassuring and as not meeting the substance of the criticism, namely that a ratio of 1:1:1 was itself inappropriate.
Mr Carlo Taczalski, for the defendants generally on the Mechanical Engineering issue, disputed the extent of the asymmetry between the claimants and defendants. He accepted that the defendants have in-house expertise but denied that this was a substitute for the work needed to be carried out by the CPR Part 35 expert. Mr Taczalski also disputed that the need to deal with more core sample vehicles justified the claimants’ assumption that there would need to be a double allocation of costs to Mercedes.
Mr Bailey, for Renault, submitted that there was an unexplained discrepancy in circumstances where the claimants’ mechanical engineering expert fees were 1.5 times the defendants’ experts but the solicitors and counsel fees were double. He submitted that the result was more extreme than the 1:1:1 approach seen elsewhere. For Peugeot-Citroen, Mr Hogan described the sums claimed for both expert fees and counsel’s fees as “surprising” and the profit costs as “arbitrary”.
For Software Engineering, the defendants said the work required was limited to the filing of a joint statement following a meeting between the respective experts. Notwithstanding this, the claimants still sought nearly half of the original budgeted sums even though the cost of preparing an initial report and two responsive reports was no longer required. The extent of counsel’s fees was also criticised as not reflecting the expert led exercise allowed by the court.
For Consumer Behaviour, the defendants’ offer of little more than one third of the sums claimed by the claimants reflected the stark difference in the parties’ views of its utility. The defendants made a valid point regarding the reduction in issues to be dealt with by this expert, but their offer allowed for little more than the expert’s fees claimed.
For UK Vehicle Valuation, the defendants referred to the “considerably reduced scope” and quoted the managing judge as saying that the remaining issue was a “very limited question”. The defendants described the remaining issue as being slightly expanded, rather than the claimants’ description of it. Notwithstanding this description, the reduction in the claimants’ budgets of just over a fifth did not reflect the reduction in scope, in the defendants’ submission.
The Court’s Decision
The 1:1:1 Ratio
The court held that the explanation given by the claimants for the 1:1:1 ratio was not reassuring and did not meet the substance of the criticism. The fact that profit costs figures had been suppressed to match counsel’s fees and expert fees did not address the underlying concern about the overall ratio. If anything, it reinforced the view that there was too much input from the legal team into the expert evidence.
The court stated that it ought not to be the case that the legal fees are anywhere close to twice the amount of the expert fees required to produce the necessary evidence. Previous judicial comments had been made about an inappropriate amount of lawyer time being spent in the curation of expert evidence.
The court noted that the budgets produced by the Lead and ALGLO defendants suggested that the legal input of solicitors and counsel combined would be no more costly than the expert evidence and on some occasions rather less. Whilst the court did not rely too heavily upon such budgets, which were inevitably produced on a somewhat speculative basis where the defendants did not consider that evidence was required, it reinforced the view that the amount of legal input into the claimants’ production of expert evidence was some way beyond what was reasonable between the parties.
Loss Assessment
Prior to the hearing, the claimants’ budgeted costs for this discipline amounted to £1,855,808.74 in addition to incurred costs of £2,355,017.34. Following the undertaking to revise counsel fees given at the hearing, counsel’s fees were claimed in the sum of £558,277.87 (a reduction of £62,030.87) whilst the profit costs remained at £618,000 and experts’ fees at £617,500. The overall estimated costs claimed were therefore £1,793,777.87. The defendants’ offer was £1,267,500.
The court noted that the proposed reduction in the legal fees was exactly 10% in this field and that this reduced the proportion from being 2:1 to 1.9:1. The court was under the impression that something rather more significant was being contemplated by the claimants’ legal team.
Taking the experts’ fees figure of £617,500 and doubling it as a starting point to reflect an equal amount for legal fees, the court reached a figure which was below the defendants’ offer of £1,267,500. In such circumstances, it was difficult to consider the defendants’ offer to be anything other than a reasonable sum to allow and so the court allowed £1,267,500.
Mechanical Engineering
Prior to the hearing, the budgeted costs claimed were £3,234,598.19, together with £2,481,298.26 in respect of incurred costs. Following the hearing, the fees were reduced by, in round terms, £279,000 (profit costs), £364,000 (counsel’s fees) and £144,000 (experts’ fees) totalling a revised estimated figure of £2,445,959.49. The defendants’ offer for this element totalled £1,460,605.
The court noted that the incurred costs under this heading were more easily explained than for the loss assessment discipline, given the further testing regime in the context of quantum which had involved mechanical engineers. There was little challenge to the experts’ fees themselves as opposed to the fees expected to be required for legal oversight.
If the court again took, as a starting point, the doubling of the experts’ fees for the various Lead and ALGLOs it reached, in round terms, £680,000 for Mercedes; £340,000 each for Peugeot-Citroen and Ford; and £515,000 in respect of Nissan/Renault.
The court considered that this starting point in respect of Mercedes was sufficiently close to the (revised) sum actually sought by the claimants of £718,681.65 for the estimated sum to be allowed as claimed.
The same was not true for the remainder of the ALGLO budgets, where the total revised sums sought remained significantly in excess of double the expert fees. The court tended to the view that the same sum should be allowed in respect of Peugeot-Citroen and Ford given that these manufacturers would appear to be broadly similar (at least in terms of number of sample vehicles). The figure of £340,000 fell squarely between the offers made by the two defendants. The court considered that the Peugeot-Citroen offer was unrealistic assuming the experts’ fees were allowed as claimed. However, the Ford figure of £400,000 allowed for 1 to 1.5 times those experts’ fees for legal fees and the court viewed this as a reasonable sum to be allowed to the claimants rather than the sum being claimed of nearly £500,000.
In relation to Nissan/Renault, it appeared that both sides were working on the principle that something in the region of 1.5 times the other ALGLO budgets would be reasonable. The court agreed, and with that in mind, allowed £600,000 in respect of that budget.
Accordingly, the court allowed £400,000 for each of Peugeot-Citroen and Ford.
Software Engineering
Costs in respect of this expert discipline were claimed at the GLO specific level. Prior to the hearing the estimated costs claimed were £1,956,800.90. Following the hearing, the estimated costs had been reduced to £759,015.80 based on £234,000 (profit costs), £223,133.70 (counsel’s fees) and £301,882.10 (experts’ fees). This estimated sum was in fact now considerably lower than the £951,128.93 offered by the defendants prior to the hearing. In large part this was explained by the reduction in scope of the evidence allowed.
At the case management hearing, the managing judge ruled that (at least for the time being) there need not be a separate report in addition to a joint report. It was presently anticipated therefore that the software engineers produce a joint report which sufficiently articulates the reasons for any areas of disagreement in respect of any areas where the software engineers cannot agree. The areas of disagreement were anticipated to be limited.
The court accepted that input into discussions as to how helpful the evidence is, or could be, with further exploration, forms an integral part of the experts’ evidence whether in conference with counsel or otherwise. On the face of it, the reduction of a little over half from the previously contemplated figures seemed to the court to be a realistic reduction. Nevertheless, the court saw some force in the defendants’ argument that the proportion of legal time, and in particular counsel input, should be lessened by the reduction in formal documentation needing to be served. On this basis, the court considered that the budgeted sum should be £125,000 per ALGLO save for Nissan/Renault where it should be £250,000.
Consumer Behaviour
Costs in respect of consumer behaviour were claimed at the Pan NOx level. Prior to the hearing they were claimed in a total sum of £1,425,823.50. Following the hearing, the experts’ fees continued to be claimed at £473,900, the solicitors’ fees had been reduced by £7,000 to £465,850 and counsel’s fees by roughly £88,000 to £391,166.51. The revised sum of £1,330,916.51 claimed for estimated costs remained considerably more than the £525,000 offered by the defendants for this field.
In giving permission for consumer behaviour evidence to be produced at the quantum trial, the managing judge emphasised that the evidence obtained from the consumer behaviour expert was to be non-duplicative to work carried out by the loss assessment expert.
The defendants’ offer of little more than one third of the sums claimed by the claimants for this discipline reflected the stark difference in the parties’ views of its utility. However, the court had determined that evidence under this heading was reasonable. Arguments as to utility, when the court may have relied or not relied at all on such evidence may be made in due course in the usual way if or when any costs order is made, but that was not relevant for the budgeting exercise once permission had been granted. Whilst the defendants made a valid point regarding the reduction in issues to be dealt with by this expert, their offer allowed for little more than the expert’s fees claimed.
The court held that there certainly ought to be some reduction in the expert’s fees, given the focussing of the issues and the court’s exhortation to avoid duplicating evidence being provided by other experts. That was also bound to flow through into the associated legal work. Doing the best it could in what was suspected to be a niche area of expertise, the court allowed a total of £1 million at the Lead/ALGLO level.
UK Vehicle Valuation and/or Pricing
The costs in this expert discipline were also claimed at the Lead/ALGLO level. A total of £938,286.95 for estimated costs was claimed prior to the hearing. Unlike the other disciplines, this sum was made up of four essentially equal parts with “other disbursements” adding to the profit costs, counsel’s fees and experts’ fees. The estimated costs were reduced to £730,333.26 following the hearing. The “other disbursements figure” of £219,300 did not change, but the other three elements were reduced to £175,650 (profit costs), £145,583.26 (counsel’s fees) and £189,800 (experts’ fees). The defendants’ offer for this field was £400,000.
At the case management hearing, the managing judge allowed evidence from an expert in this discipline in a considerably reduced scope from that sought by the claimants. Many of the issues proposed by the claimants to be considered by this expert were rejected.
The court thought it was clear from the determination made by the managing judge that the court’s intention was to provide the claimants with no more than a facility to combat the inevitable expertise contained inhouse at the defendants regarding the marketing of their products. The description of a “limited question” based on only one of nine questions originally proposed and with almost no amendment did not fit with the claimants’ approach as described in their post hearing letter.
The defendants had maintained their offer of £400,000 (which was now more than 50% of the total claimed). It seemed to the court that that was an entirely reasonable sum in respect of this element of the budget and it was allowed as such.
Defendants’ Budgets for the Experts’ Phase
It was confirmed by counsel to the court during the hearing that, in respect of the Tranche 3 expert reports, all of the ALGLO and non-ALGLO defendants’ individual budgets had been agreed, save for Vauxhall. All of the other non-ALGLO defendants had agreed their budget at a maximum of £20,000 for the experts in loss assessment and mechanical engineering. Further sums up to £10,000 had been agreed by those same defendants for the three contingent experts’ disciplines.
This left Vauxhall alone in contending for £23,453.56 for the loss assessment and mechanical engineering experts and £11,726.78 in respect of each of the three contingent experts. Ms Collar made oral submissions in support of the non-contingent experts’ budget by making reference to it amounting to less than 30 minutes for considering the main reports and less than 20 minutes for the contingencies. In Ms Collar’s submission, that time could not be reasonably reduced.
The court held that there was certainly the opportunity for the court to vary sums for different defendants in respect of the same phase in an appropriate case. The difficulty with Vauxhall’s argument was that it inevitably led to a consideration of the hourly rates that were charged in combination with the time claimed. It was trite to say that hourly rates were not set when budgets were considered and therefore it was a slippery slope to consider submissions of this nature in any detail. The task of the court was to set the global figure for each phase and it was a matter for the party thereafter as to what level of lawyer dealt with what aspect of the work required.
All of the non-ALGLO defendants would have to carry out similar work in respect of considering the expert reports obtained in the Lead and ALGLO cases. There was no good reason, as far as the court could see, for Vauxhall to be required to spend more time and effort in this task than any of the other non-ALGLO defendants. The other defendants had either estimated amounts less than £10,000 or £20,000, or been prepared to agree offers, at those sums. The court therefore came to the conclusion that the reasonable sum to allow for Vauxhall’s budget in respect of the Tranche 3 expert reports was also the combined figure of £50,000 made up of £20,000 and three £10,000 budgets.
ADR/Settlement Discussions Phase | Defendants’ Budgets
The entirety of the defendants’ budgets for this phase had been agreed by the claimants. The current defendants’ budgets totalled £1,687,074.55, representing a reduction of a little over £100,000 from the budget put forward for the second hearing.
The claimants said that it was not always obvious why there was a variation in the budgets between defendants given the paucity of assumptions set out. However, the claimants were committed to ensuring that all parties were adequately resourced to engage meaningfully and constructively in ADR/Settlement Discussions and were open to any approach that may facilitate a productive resolution of the dispute, including giving the defendants the benefit of the doubt in their estimates for the ADR phase. Accordingly, the claimants were prepared to agree the totality of the defendants’ projected future costs in the ADR phase of the Second General Budgets.
The court held that it did not seem that the claimants’ approach of effectively agreeing to whatever the defendants said they required to enter into ADR was one which should be endorsed by the court. This was particularly so where the claimants’ own assumptions for this phase were now much more limited. They accepted the defendants’ view that it was unlikely there would be any substantial settlement discussions before the formal PDD judgment was handed down (probably in July). The claimants said that any settlement discussions taking place would be informal rather than via any formal ADR process such as a mediation. Any settlement work was likely to take place prior to the quantum trial beginning in October and that thereafter, the parties would be too busy with the trial to be able to engage in settlement discussions. In any event, no concluded settlement was expected to be reached by the end of the period (31 December 2026), or indeed nor was it expected that any discussions were likely to have reached an advanced stage by then.
Given these limitations, the court recalibrated its view of the sufficiency of the defendants’ estimated costs. Rather than being the lowest sum which could be put forward to avoid judicial criticism, the court took the view that they were quite generous. As such, they had relevance to the sums claimed by the claimants.
ADR/Settlement Discussions Phase | Claimants’ Budgets
The total sum claimed by the claimants had reduced markedly from the previous figure of £11 million to one of £1,984,770. Those costs were claimed against the individual GLOs with just over £1 million claimed against the Lead and ALGLOs and just under £900,000 being claimed against the Non-ALGLOs. The defendants’ offer of £1,211,162 broke down almost exactly two thirds/one third between the Lead and ALGLO defendants and the Non-ALGLOs.
For Peugeot-Citroen, the claimants claimed £192,136 and were offered £168,330 for this phase. The reason for the difference was the sum claimed for the non-lead firms of £52,836. The defendants’ offer allowed for £29,030 for that work on the assumption that the lead solicitors’ time and disbursements were allowed in full.
The lead solicitors’ time in respect of each of the Lead and ALGLOs’ budgets was claimed at the same figure and so too were the disbursements. The only variable between those budgets was where there was a steering committee involved, such as in the Mercedes GLO, and the number of non-lead solicitors involved. In respect of the latter, 17 hours per non-lead solicitor had been allowed for in the claimants’ budgets, save for the Johnson Law Group who had been allowed 25.5 hours and who were intending to provide a co-ordinating role amongst non-lead solicitors in the GLOs in which they were involved.
Mercedes and Ford had agreed figures with the claimants in respect of their budgets. Assuming that the lead solicitors’ time and disbursements had been allowed in full in each, these agreed budgets suggested that Ford had allowed the equivalent non-lead solicitors’ time in full and Mercedes had reduced the non-lead solicitors’ time by roughly one third. The Ford and Mercedes agreements with the claimants suggested that the Peugeot-Citroen offer of 55% or thereabouts was a little low and the court allowed £175,000 for this phase.
For Nissan/Renault, the claimants’ figures were double the other ALGLOs in respect of lead solicitors’ time and disbursements and totalled the sum of £406,816. Nissan offered £235,000 and Renault offered £221,846. At first blush, the defendants had offered at least as much as was being claimed by the claimants and it might be expected that the claimed figure would therefore be agreed. However, the claimants understood from past experience that the Nissan/Renault defendants made separate and different offers which were not capable of being accepted without the agreement of the other. In practice, this meant that the lower of the two offers was the only one which the claimants could actually accept.
In submissions, Mr Teasdale did not shy away from the doubling of the figures under this phase and pointed to the defendants’ budget discussion reports which indicated that, at least as far as Renault were concerned, there would not be any coordination between the defendants in respect of settlement. If the defendants were to go in different directions, then there was no justification for suggesting that the claimants’ costs in this ALGLO should be similar to those in the other ALGLOs. Whilst he contended for the doubling figures in their entirety, Mr Teasdale indicated that in any event, the figures would be higher than those agreed in the Mercedes GLO.
The budgeted figures for these defendants were £200,840.00 (Nissan); £7,675.00 (Nissan authorised dealerships) and £144,966.30 (Renault), making a total of £353,481.30. Based on these figures agreed between the parties, it would appear that the defendants expected to spend approximately 1.5 times more than they considered was reasonable for the claimants to spend in respect of any settlement negotiations.
The court held that there were numerous possibilities as to the methodology of any settlement reached between the claimants and some or all of the defendants. The estimated figures were therefore particularly broad brush in this phase. The court did not think there was any great purpose in considering whether doubling the claimants’ figures in order to cope with two separate OEMs was precisely the correct approach. But it seemed unlikely that the claimants would spend less than the defendants in such negotiations. Consequently, the court considered that £350,000, representing essentially the same sum as claimed by the defendants overall, was the reasonable and proportionate sum for this phase.
For the non-ALGLO defendants, all offered the sum of £50,000 to the claimants in the budget discussion reports in respect of each GLO specific budget. By the time of the hearing, Toyota had agreed a sum of £69,450, but the remaining seven budgets were not agreed. The sums claimed by the claimants in those budgets ranged from £75,400 to £149,363. The lowest three budgets (including Toyota) had been reduced following a decision by the claimants to reflect the fact that in those budgets, only one of the lead solicitor firms was instructed by the claimants. As such, less work was likely to be done. Overall, the claimants did not accept that simply halving the time claimed was appropriate.
The other five budgets were much closer in range (between £121,486 and £149,363) and, as with the ALGLO budgets, they were based on a standard figure for the lead solicitors and for counsel’s fees. Those figures were reduced. As with the ALGLO budgets, these non-ALGLO budgets varied depending upon the amount of non-lead solicitors’ time involved. They contained the same amounts of time as for the ALGLO budgets in respect of each individual non-lead solicitor.
The non-ALGLO defendants’ own budgets generally ranged between £40,000 and £70,000 with Volvo (£82,827.50) and Vauxhall (£103,836.91) being the outliers.
The defendants’ offer of £50,000 on the claimants’ budget per non-ALGLO defendant was said to be based upon the allowances made in the first hearing judgment regarding this phase. However, as Mr Teasdale pointed out, the figures in fact varied quite considerably, with, for example, the budget in the Vauxhall GLO being allowed at £100,000 whereas in the Toyota GLO it was £20,000, which perhaps reflected the suggestion that it ought to be at the lower end of the sums involved given the comparative simplicity of any settlement mechanism. The court considered it was difficult to say any standard figure ought properly to apply in this phase. Even a regimented methodology for settlement of individual claims would require more time where there were considerably more claimants than in others. The court therefore rejected the defendants’ approach of simply allowing a standard figure.
Nevertheless, the court considered the defendants’ two thirds/one third approach between ALGLO and non-ALGLO defendants to be a more appropriate division than allowed for in the 55/45 figures proposed by the claimants and moved the sums allowed towards the defendants’ split. As Mr Kapoor submitted on behalf of the defendants on this subject, any settlement of these claims was likely to be based on a framework which cascaded from the lead and ALGLO defendants to the non-ALGLO defendants, at least in its general shape.
The court also agreed with the general thrust of the defendants that any negotiation would have to be dealt with in a compressed period. Until the PDD judgment was available for consideration, little or no negotiating was likely. Once the quantum trial had commenced, the scope for industry in respect of settlement was also constrained. The court acknowledged Mr Teasdale’s comments that if there was traction in the manner of any negotiations, then significant time may be spent in seeking to resolve the claims. Equally, there may be little or no traction and the court’s task was not to budget on a worst case approach.
Balancing these various factors, and having allowed £975,986 in respect of the ALGLO budgets for this phase, the court allowed the sum of £649,450 in respect of the non-ALGLO defendants. The court allowed a maximum of £75,000 in respect of the single lead firm defendants and allocated the remainder so as to achieve a figure which was approximately 60%/40% overall.
Conclusion
The court’s approach to the experts’ phase established a clear methodology: doubling the approved expert fees as a starting point for reasonable legal costs. This produced total allowed costs of £5,411,181.65 for the claimants and £12,858,057.16 for the defendants.
For the ADR/settlement discussions phase, the court allowed £1,625,436.00 for the claimants and £1,687,074.55 for the defendants. The court rejected both the claimants’ initial £11 million estimate and the defendants’ attempt to impose a uniform £50,000 cap across all non-ALGLO defendants, instead adopting a nuanced approach that reflected the varying complexity of individual GLOs while maintaining an overall two thirds/one third split between ALGLO and non-ALGLO work.
The judgment reinforces the principle that legal fees for curating expert evidence must bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of the expert work itself, and that a ratio approaching 2:1 in favour of legal fees will ordinarily be regarded as disproportionate in multi-party litigation.
▶ Watch the case summary
High Court Slashes Claimants’ Costs Budgets by 62% In NOx Emissions Litigation
Costs Budgeting, Proportionality and Incurred Costs
Group litigation: a determination of costs related to common issues
Co-Claimants Pursuing Common Case Face Joint And Several Liability For Adverse Costs
Parties warned to stop treating costs budgeting “as a form of game”
Claimant Penalised In Costs For “Unreasonable and Unrealistic” Costs Budget
