Master Rowley becomes the latest costs judge to tackle the meaning of ‘good reason to depart’ from an approved costs budget on detailed assessment, specifically in relation to hourly rates and valuation of claim.
An examination of the role and relevance of an approved costs budget on an application under CPR 44.2(8) for a payment on account of costs.
On a detailed assessment of costs a reduction in hourly rates of the incurred costs is not a ‘good reason’ to depart from the budget in respect of the budgeted (future) costs.
Davis LJ endorses Master Whalan’s approach to detailed assessment where costs budgets have been agreed or approved
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.