Chief Master Marsh considers the purpose and effect of commenting on incurred costs at a costs management hearing under CPR 3.15 and PD 3E.
Coulson J warns against parties adopting an unrealistic approach to costs budgeting and in particular with regards to Precedent R.
Carr J: “On a detailed assessment on a standard basis, the costs judge is bound by the agreed or approved cost budget, unless there is a good reason to depart from it.”
Sales LJ sets out the Court of Appeal’s policy regarding costs security when a party demonstrates a ‘deliberate reticence’ about its financial position, and the relevance of any court approved costs budget in the calculation of an appropriate sum
HHJ Pelling QC exercises caution in the absence of “express or implied agreement of the parties” to indicate whether, or not, he would have been prepared to approve an increase in the Defendant’s approved costs budget had an application been made pre trial.
Warby J reduces defendant’s proposed legal budget by more than a quarter, claiming the reduced sum will still allow them to undertake a “proper” defence.
In a recent libel case, the High Court clarified the judiciary’s approach to contingencies within budgets. In the dispute, contingencies accounted for around 10 per cent of both sides’ future estimated costs.
HHJ Simon Brown QC, the pioneer of costs budgeting, has given instant reward for keeping within a court approved budget, with a summary assessment of costs in the sum of £351,000 payable within 14 days.
The High Court rejected a bid by a successful defendant to nearly double its approved costs budget of almost £270k after trial.