More changes are coming to costs in the latest amendments to the CPR – Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2021

More changes are coming to costs in the latest amendments to the CPR – Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2021, which comes into force on 6 April 2021, and the 127th update to the PD. 

Costs Management

These changes are not significant, however it is noted that there has been one amendment that is worthy of mention particularly for practical reasons. During the last tranche of costs changes in October 2020 (122nd update) when the costs practice directions and rules were consolidated and the precedent H guidance notes were incorporated into PD 3E, it was identified that one of the amendments created difficulties in terms of drafting of the budget. The amendment related to CPR 3.17(3)(a) which stated that the Court may not approve costs incurred before the date of any costs management hearing and replaced the previous practice direction that referred to how the courts may not approve incurred costs up to and including the date of the costs and case management hearing. This amendment resulted in the provision of updated incurred costs information that included an element of estimated costs, i.e. the costs associated with attending the CCMC. Please see follow this link https://www.clarionsolicitors.com/articles/costs-and-litigation-funding-newsletter-october-2020 for more a detailed analysis in that regard.

Master Cook recognised the difficulties that rule change made in the 122nd update created and has now addressed this in this latest tranche of rule changes. The rules have been amended, as follows:

“(3) Subject to rule 3.15A, the court (a) may not approve costs incurred up to and including the date of any costs management hearing; but (b) may record its comments on those costs and take those costs into account when considering the reasonableness and proportionality of all budgeted costs.”

This is a change that is very much welcomed and simplifies the presentation of incurred costs.

Some minor amendments to the cost management Practice direction 3E have been made which are limited to substituting “budgeted costs” for total costs (incurred and estimated) in paragraph 4b of practice direction 3E; and the substitution of interlocutory for interim at paragraph 10 (a). The final amendment relates to the table found in PD 3E in the Disclosure section, where ”third party” is to be substituted with “non-party”.

Summary assessment

The PD 51X Costs for Summary Assessment Pilot scheme has been running for nearly 2 years and the judiciary have confirmed that they have received some useful comments, however they have extended the voluntary pilot scheme for a further year to enable the capture of more data.

Capped Costs Pilot

PD51W Capped Costs pilot scheme was launched in January 2019 and has run for 2 years. The scheme was limited to cases valued up to £250,000 in the Business and Property Courts in Manchester, Leeds and London Circuit Commercial Court. It followed a recommendation made by Sir Rupert Jackson in his 2017 report as part of his push for fixed costs. There has been limited uptake with only one case being heard under the pilot and consequently the scheme has not been extended.

The CPRC have commented that “it was acknowledged that the broad aims remain as current as ever and the need for schemes of this kind for the efficient despatch of medium value claims, whether as pilots or not, will continue to be considered in the context of post Covid-19 recovery and new ways of conducting business litigation”.

Joanne Chase is a Senior Associate in our Costs and Litigation Funding team. If you have any questions, please contact her on 07826 166 300 or at joanne.chase@clarionsolicitors.com .

The Precedent T – a new Costs Management precedent, watch this space!

The CPRC have released minutes of their latest meeting.  The committee had been asked to consider proposals and options relating to revisions to CPR r3.15 and PD 3E.

Discussions centred around whether the no retrospective costs budgeting rule applies and how it works within the budget variation. It was mooted that a rule change which sets out the factors that the court should take into account may be appropriate.  Proposals were also made regarding a new draft precedent T (in excel format), its intention being to set out the particulars of the proposed budget variation.

It was recognised that there were varying practices currently in play when applying to revise a budget, and  because of that it was proposed that a solution would be to codify the procedure. 

The committee remained alive to the fact that any rule change should not open up parties to attempt to budget repair. More detail regarding the importance of revising the budget can be found in our previous blog here.

The subjective topic of what is a ‘”significant development” was discussed. Currently PD3E paragraph 7.6 provides that budget variations are warranted if a significant development occurs. It was considered critical that the significant development was explained early in the process to avoid any attempt to budget repair.

The committee agreed the Precedent T in principle. It was agreed to re-draft their proposals which cater for ‘retrospective costs budgeting’. We should also see some further guidance which will add clarity between ‘budget variations’ and ‘ood reason to depart from the budget’.

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

Court of Appeal finds approved costs budget irrelevant when indemnity basis awarded

The Court of Appeal decision in Lejonvarn v Burgess & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 114 has determined that an approved costs budget is irrelevant where indemnity costs are ordered.

The appellant’s case was that whilst there was an approved costs budget of £415,000, her actual costs were £724,265.63. To allow this would effectively reward her for failing to keep within the budget. Interestingly the budget was only partially costs managed and therefore was subject to change in certain phases in any event.

Lord Justice Coulson acknowledged The figure produced by an approved cost budget mechanism (CPR r.3.12-r.3.18) is a different thing to the final assessment of costs following the trial. The former is prospective; the latter is retrospective. True it is that, in many cases, the approved costs budget will be the appropriate starting point for the final costs assessment. But that does not detract from the underlying proposition that they are different figures produced by different considerations with different purposes” and in any event “If there is an order for indemnity costs, then prima facie any approved budget becomes irrelevant.

Although Lord Justice Coulson was not persuaded that there was an approved budget in this particular case he made it clear that costs assessed on an indemnity basis are not constrained by an approved costs budget. He even went so far as to say that his obiter comments in the cases of Elvanite and Bank of Ireland v Watts which suggested the contrary, should be disregarded.

Anna Lockyer is an Associate in the Costs and Litigation Funding Department at Clarion Solicitors. You can contact her at anna.lockyer@clarionsolicitors.com and 0113 288 5619, or the Clarion Costs Team on 0113 246 0622