I completely agree with the ideology and concept that Precedent H Costs Budgets should be prepared once the order for directions has been made. This enables all parties to cost their budget from the same case plan and then draw the correct comparisons when negotiating. Having an order detailing the directions made avoids parties drafting budgets with assumptions which differ, this naturally makes drawing comparisons a challenging task and negotiations sometimes impossible. Preparing the budget following the directions order can also avoid the inevitable amendments which will be required to reflect the directions made and also the subsequent hearing which may be necessary, surely a much simpler and more cost effective process – “hear, hear” are the shouts from all the Costs Draftsmen/Costs Lawyers.
Perhaps the reason that this was not adopted is because the Courts are, or should be, guided by the costs of a particular task/aspect when determining the directions, this was certainly the intention of the Jackson Reforms. What a quandary? Should the Courts be implementing a system which results in a more costs effective solution – utopia for the Costs Lawyer, or; should the Courts implement the Jackson Reforms correctly, thus ensuring that the Courts are managing the cases properly by determining the cost of each direction sought before assessing whether it is proportionate to make that direction? This certainly opens up an additional very interesting discussion.
Please see the attached link: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/its-just-silly-phase-im-going-mark-carlisle?trk=prof-post