Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Coulson J has held that the court has an unfettered discretion to make an order that the costs budgeting regime apply to cases where the claim exceeds the value threshold of either £2 million or £10 million, depending on when the first CMC was/is held - CIP Properties v Galliford Try Infrastructure and others  EWHC 3546 (TCC).
Does such a decision fill you with horror or do you welcome the fact that costs budgeting could be ordered for higher value claims? Well, before we all get carried away, there is a major caveat to this decision and it is one which Coulson J kindly signposts for us in his judgment. That is that his decision was determined on the basis of the provisions in CPR rule 3.12 as it was when it came into force on 1 April 2013. As we all know the provisions subsequently changed on 22 April 2014 and with that change some pertinent wording, on which Coulson J relied in his judgment, namely a little word 'unless' was deleted. Under the 1 April 2013 wording, the exceptions to the costs budgeting regime were followed by the following wording: 'unless the proceedings are the subject of fixed costs or scale costs or the court otherwise orders' (emphasis added).
Coulson J was of the view that construction of the current provisions might well lead to a different decision. For practitioners this judgment provides certainty on the old wording and but an element of uncertainty as to whether, if asked to exercise its discretion to order costs budgeting, the courts have the power to do so under the current costs budgeting provisions in CPR 3.12. No doubt, given it has now been highlighted by the judiciary, this will be an area that the legal profession, or those that thrive on the challenge of pushing the boundaries of the rules, will look to explore. We will have to wait to see whether the CPR Committee revisit the wording of the current provisions given Coulson J's comment that he considered that the deletion of the wording 'unless' maybe an unfortunate piece of drafting.
Another aspect of interest in this judgment was the consideration as to whether parties should provide multiple costs budgets when defending an action and pursuing a Part 20 action in the same proceedings. Coulson J's view, which will have been a relief to the defendant in this case, was that this would be an expensive undertaking as well as being unfair and contrary to the overriding objective if the defendant was required to incur the significant costs which would be involved in preparing multiple costs budgets. Coulson J referred, as support to his approach, to the decision of Master Kaye QC in Lotus Cars v Mecanica  EWHC 76 (QB), decided earlier this year, where he refused to order multiple budgets on the basis there was no good and sensible reason to do so. That case was a large group action and Coulson J considered that the same approach applied equally well to multi party litigation involving a number of third parties.
For those involved in costs budgeting, or those who have a fear of it, this case is well worth reading and at only 9 pages, is one of the shorter judgments to come out of the TCC.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Janna is a dispute resolution lawyer. She deals primarily with cross border issues and is active in the work being undertaken in relation to the implications of Brexit for Dispute Resolution lawyers. Janna also heads up a LexisNexis costs team bringing together expertise from across the company to deal with the costs issues facing the profession.
0330 161 1234