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.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
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
uneasy relationship between costs budgeting and the pre-April 2013 test of proportionality is evidenced by the costs management process in The Construction Industry Vetting Information Group Litigation  EWHC 3543 (QB). Jon Lord
of Civil and Commercial Costs Lawyers Ltd discusses the implications of the case.
In this Group Litigation, Supperstone J, with the assistance of Master Leslie and Chief Master Gordon-Saker, was tasked with making a costs management order in relation to the common costs to be incurred. Four different firms of solicitors were
involved on behalf of the Claimants and six for the Defendants.
Proceedings were issued before 1 April 2013, meaning that the post-Jackson proportionality test – that costs reasonably and necessarily incurred may still be disallowed on the standard basis if they are disproportionate– will not apply to
any costs incurred and instead the ‘old’ test in Home Office v Lownds is applicable. The Lownds test means that if costs appear disproportionate they may still be allowed between parties if they were necessary and reasonable.
Supperstone J had little difficulty in concluding that costs on the Claimant side of £22m and costs on the Defendant side of £27m appeared disproportionate, notwithstanding this was complex litigation with a pleaded value of over £60m.
Having decided that, the Court went on to consider what costs were necessary and a reasonable figure for each phase
After making revisions in relation to each of the budgets, the Court proceeded to approve figures for each phase of the budgets where they had not already been agreed.
Save for issues over what had and had not been agreed, one might conclude that this was a regular costs management hearing. However, when one set of litigants or another wins and presumably is awarded costs on the standard basis, what will be the
status of the costs budgets as to the sums to be allowed at the detailed assessment?
The parties are agreed that CPR 3, Section II applies. Rule 3.18 states:
“In any case where a costs management order has been made, when assessing costs on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) have regard to the receiving party’s last approved or agreed budget for each phase of the proceedings; and
(b) not depart from such approved or agreed budget unless satisfied that there is good reason to do so.
(Attention is drawn to rule 44.3(2)(a) and rule 44.3(5) which concern proportionality of costs)”
The post-April 2013 proportionality test sits well with costs management as a proportionate sum allowed for a phase at a costs management hearing will not be exceeded unless there is good reason to do so. The court will not always need to look at the
work actually done at a detailed assessment to reduce excess expenditure to the budgeted sum.
The same, however, cannot be said for the pre-April 2013 test. At a detailed assessment, in relation to claims for sums in excess of the budgeted figures and applying the Lownds test, the Costs Judge is bound to go through work done in a particular
phase and allow costs that were necessarily incurred and reasonable in amount. If the outcome of applying that test is that a greater sum than was considered proportionate at the costs management hearing is allowed then surely that is a good
reason to depart from the budget; to disallow those costs would be to fail to give effect to the applicable test.
If that is the case, CPR 3.18 is rendered toothless because a good reason to depart from the budget is relatively easily satisfied if all that needs to be done is to demonstrate that the work was necessary and reasonable, even though the total sum may
be considered to be disproportionate under the new test.
Lord Justice Jackson’s ideal of his reforms being implemented as a ‘package’ is significantly watered down and the costs management process is in danger of being rendered otiose by the application of the old test of proportionality.
In order to have proper effect, CPR 3.18 needs the new test of proportionality to work properly, hence the bracketed sentence at the end of the rule.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234