Tag: budget

Claimant’s budget reduced to court fees; the court refused to grant relief

Andrew McAulayLeave a comment

In the case of  Jamadar -v- Bradford Teaching Hospital NHS Trust CA 21/07/2016, the Claimant failed to file a costs budget and their budget was limited to court fees.

The Defendant had admitted liability, following which the Judge revoked the notice of allocation.  The matter was listed for a CMC, therefore the Defendant complied with the rules and filed a budget, however the Claimant did not.  The Judge ordered that the Claimant’s budget be reduced to court fees, the Claimant applied for relief from sanctions and were unsuccessful.  The Claimant appealed to the Circuit Judge, which also failed and the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

The revoking of the N149C did not mean that the case was not allocated to the multi-track.

The rules are clear, a budget must be filed before the first CMC for all multi-track claims that are less than £10m.  The rules state that a budget must be filed for cases that are likely to be allocated to the multi-track.  This was a claim for £3m, its hard to see how this claim could have been allocated to any other track – the matter had been listed for a CMC, it was suitable for the multi-track, therefore the criteria in the CPR which triggers the preparation of a budget had been met.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at CivilCosts@clarionsolicitors.com

How can the precedent H budget assist with any submissions for a split trial?

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

The budget can be used in certain instances to assist with the litigation.  A request for a split trial is one of those instances.   The fundamental argument surrounding whether there should be a split trial is predominantly the additional costs associated with this extra trial.

Whether you are requesting the split trial or opposing it, the budget can help.

How can the budget assist with any submissions in support of the application? The budget can demonstrate that the costs remain proportionate and reasonable and those costs are not excessive, despite the additional costs that will be incurred.

How can the budget assist with any submissions in opposition to the application? The budget may be able to highlight that the additional costs will result in the costs being wholly disproportionate and unreasonable.

The budget can be a useful tool for litigators.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at CivilCosts@clarionsolicitors.com

Revising your budget – what is a ‘significant development in the litigation’?

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

Budgets can only be revised if there has been a ‘significant development in the litigation’.  Unfortunately the CPR is devoid of any comment or explanation regarding what a ‘significant development in the litigation’ is.  In the recent case of Churchill -v- Boot (22/04/16) the court determined that the budget could not be revised because no such development had occurred.

The value of the claim had doubled since the original budget had been approved, the trial had been delayed and there had been additional disclosure.  The Judge found that there had not been any significant developments since the date that the previous budget was approved and refused to vary the budget.  The Claimant appealed to the judge who held that:

  • He was not satisfied that there had been significant developments
  • The increased value of the claim did not mean that there would be higher costs. The parties already had permission to call the relevant experts.
  • The additional disclosure was clearly foreseeable when the costs budget was set.
  • An adjournment could potentially be a significant development. However on the facts of this case it was not.
  • The master had exercised his discretion appropriately there were no grounds to interfere with the exercise of that discretion.

This demonstrates the need to interpret the case and accurately formulate the case plan prior to preparing the budget.  The judge gave consideration to what the parties should have known when the budget was prepared, rather than simply relying on the assumptions to support the revision of the budget.  Accurate assumptions are essential despite the recent amendment to the rules which encourage condensed assumptions.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at CivilCosts@clarionsolicitors.com

Negotiate, negotiate, negotiate

Andrew McAulayLeave a comment

The court has awarded costs against a party who has claimed unreasonable amounts in their budget.  In the case of King & Anor v Thipthorp & Ors [2016] EWHC 3859 (COP) the court reduced areas of the budget due to unreasonable claims and disproportionate amounts.  Although the budgets appeared overall not to be excessive, the budget was still reduced in relation to particular items.  This is contrary to the intended approach of the court, which is to adopt a global approach when considering reasonableness.  Furthermore the CPR is to be amended with regards to this global approach, confirming that hourly rates within budgets should not be set – here is a link to my previous blog regarding the yet to be implemented changes Least worse option.

The court ordered that the costs of the challenge could be recovered by the party objecting to those items.

Negotiations are key to successful costs management, avoiding the litigation risk associated with any hearing is certainly beneficial.  Furthermore, in view of the amendments to be made to the CPR regarding parties having to file “an agreed budget discussion report which sets out the agreed and disputed areas for each phase and a brief summary of the grounds of dispute schedules of agreed/disputed areas with the budgets”, negotiations have never been so important.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at CivilCosts@clarionsolicitors.com

The expense of foreign witnesses attending trial

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

Kimathi -v- Foreign and Commonwealth Office

This is an interesting case which has an impact on both bills and budgets.  There have been discussions in the past about whether witnesses could perhaps, in this technological era, attend court via video link rather than in person, thus avoiding the associated expenses of travel.

This case involved a dispute regarding whether certain Claimants were able to travel.  It was held that those Claimants that were capable of travel to England should travel and attend at the trial.  For those where there was a dispute regarding fitness levels and whether they could travel, it was held that they could give evidence by video link if they preferred.  Finally those witnesses that simply didn’t want to travel and were medically fit to travel, they should travel to England.

This case has quashed the video link argument, it can assist with any counter arguments against any issues raised regarding the expenses associated with foreign witnesses travelling to attend court.  Furthermore, foreign travel should ALWAYS be included in budgets and arguments should be raised to justify the same at any CMC, particularly reliance on the above case.

You can find out more about our services here or you can contact the Costs and Litigation Funding team at CivilCosts@clarionsolicitors.com