Tag: #costsmanagement

When High-Value Claims Still Require Budgeting: Garry White & Ors v Uber London Limited & Ors

Katie SpencerLeave a comment

The Claim

In the case of Garry White & Ors v Uber London Limited & Ors, approximately 13,000 London black cab drivers issued group proceedings against companies within the Uber group, claiming losses of around £199 million. A further claim, valued at approximately £141 million, was brought by the assignee of two private hire operators, Kabbee and Iride.

Although the total value of the litigation is around £340 million, each driver’s individual claim is relatively modest (circa £15,000), making group litigation a proportionate approach.

The claims arise from allegations that Uber unlawfully obtained a private hire vehicle operator licence by misrepresenting its operating model. It is said that this enabled Uber to compete directly with licensed black cab drivers while undercutting regulated fares, causing substantial financial loss between 2012 and March 2018.

The Preliminary Limitation Issue

Uber denies liability and argues that the claims were issued outside the six-year limitation period.

The Claimants rely on Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, arguing that time did not begin to run until they could reasonably have discovered the relevant facts, which they say occurred in June 2018 following a licensing appeal hearing.

The court has ordered that limitation be determined at a standalone five-day preliminary trial. A representative sample of 20 Claimants (10 chosen by each side) will be used to assess when sufficient knowledge arose. If the Defendants succeed, the litigation may conclude at that stage.

The Costs Budgeting Decision

A significant procedural issue to be determined was whether costs budgeting should apply.

Although claims valued at £10 million or more are ordinarily excluded from the costs management regime, the court retains discretion. The Defendants sought to disapply budgeting, relying on the overall high value of the claim, the existence of litigation funding and ATE insurance, and the alleged additional burden budgeting would impose.

The Claimants argued that, despite the aggregate value, the case is fundamentally a mass claim by individuals of limited means. They required clarity regarding potential adverse costs exposure and future funding requirements.

The Court agreed with the Claimants. While acknowledging that very high-value claims are generally unsuitable for costs management, this case was considered materially different. The modest individual claims and group structure justified greater costs oversight and transparency.

Why This Matters

This decision reinforces that the £10 million threshold is not decisive. Courts will look beyond the headline value of proceedings and consider the nature of the parties and the practical impact of costs exposure.

In large-scale group actions involving individuals with limited financial resources, costs budgeting may be viewed as an important tool to promote fairness, proportionality and effective case management and there are steps you can take ahead of the first CMC if you consider a CMO to be useful in your case.

Katie Spencer is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors and can be contacted on 07741 988 925 or at Katie.Spencer@clarionsolicitors.com.

Since costs were to be assessed on the indemnity basis, the Court declined to determine an application to vary the Claimant’s approved costs budget

Katie SpencerLeave a comment

In the case of Xtellus Capital Partners Inc v Dl Invest Group Pm S.A. [2025] EWHC 2168 , Judge Bird found that the Defendant’s unreasonable conduct during the proceedings justified ordering that the Claimant’s costs be assessed on the indemnity basis for all phases of the case.

The Claimant had applied to vary its approved budget because its actual costs exceeded the approved amounts, but the Judge considered whether it was necessary to decide that application since the assessment would be on the indemnity basis.

CPR 3.18 governs departures from approved budgets when costs are assessed on the standard basis; it does not apply where the assessment is on the indemnity basis.

CPR 44.4(3)(h) requires the court, on detailed assessment, to have regard to the receiving party’s last approved or agreed budget. Budgets therefore remain potentially relevant even on an indemnity basis assessment, and the Court may depart from them without requiring a “good reason’.

However, the Judge decided that it was best not to deal with the budget variation application at this stage. He gave two reasons:

  1. On an indemnity assessment the Court can depart from approved budgets, so leaving the matter to a detailed assessment would not prejudice the Claimant; and
  2. Deciding the variation now would involve applying the “reasonable and proportionate costs” test, which is appropriate for the standard basis, not for the indemnity basis.

In conclusion, an application to vary an approved budget is not automatically necessary where costs are to be assessed on the indemnity basis. The Court may instead leave the issue to be resolved at the detailed assessment stage.

Katie Spencer is a Paralegal in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors and can be contacted on 07741 988 925 or at katie.spencer@clarionsolicitors.com.

90% Payment on Account where there is a costs budget “Still the Norm”

Bethany CollingsLeave a comment

Earlier this week, following the judgement in Puharic v Silverbond Enterprises Ltd [2021] the High Court confirmed that a 90% payment on account of costs was a reasonable sum for the claimant paying party to have to advance to the successful defendant receiving party. The Claimant had initially offered 50%.

Gavin Mansfield QC, sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court, said: “the Claimant’s proposal fails to have regard to the developing body of law as to the relationship between costs management and detailed assessment“ and went on to comment that at detailed assessment, pursuant to CPR 3.18, the court will not depart from the approved or agreed budget unless there is a good reason to do so per MacInnes v Gross [2017]. In this case it was found that approved budgeted costs should only be reduced by a maximum of 10%.  Thomas Pink Ltd. v Victoria’s Secret UK Ltd [2014] was also referenced as an example of where 90% of the approved budgeted costs were awarded.

As no submissions were made by the Claimant in the Puharic case to suggest that there would be a good reason to depart from the approved budget, 90% of the approved budgeted costs were ordered to be paid as an interim.

In relation to incurred costs by the time of the CCMC, the Judge asserted that the same point was not applicable as these costs were not subject to the court’s approval. Guidance in accordance with the case of Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc [2015] was followed instead. The incurred costs related to the pre-action, issue/statement of case and CCMC phases. The Defendant’s incurred costs of £11,010 for the CCMC phase were recorded in the CMO as “a little high for that phase, but not significantly so” and £10,000 was deemed to be reasonable. There were no issues noted in relation to the pre-action or issue/statements of case phases and so 70% of the incurred costs were deemed a reasonable sum for the purposes of an interim payment.

In relation to the PTR phase, the Defendant sought only 50% of its budgeted costs, because even though work was carried out in this phase, the hearing was vacated.

The Claimant was ordered to make a payment on account of costs in the sum of £187,121.13.