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
Printer Friendly Version
As many practitioners will know, how one deals with even simple issues such as hourly rates on budgeting hearings varies from court to court (and even judge to judge).
Nicholas Bacon QC and George McDonald of 4 New Square consider the much needed insight into costs budgeting in practice from the four recent cases of
The following guidance (it should be stated no higher than that!) can be gleaned from those cases:
This decision will be very helpful for parties challenging budgets, as it gives the court a ready method to make significant reductions even where many of the costs have been incurred.
This decision could render the rules relating to incurred costs practically redundant- the approach adopted by the court was equivalent (or almost equivalent) to fixing the incurred costs.
However, quite how such a “record” will be applied by a costs judge on a detailed assessment remains to be seen! If you are the party seeking to obtain such a “record”, you should think long and hard about what the judge is likely to do. Do the potentially substantial benefits of obtaining such a “record” outweigh the risk of the court dismissing such an application? Would you have better prospects pursuing a similar argument before a costs judge on the assessment?
Parties might want to seize upon the “probability” test, both at the approval of budgets stage and if it is said a contingency should have been included but was missed. We fear that this could lead to considerable debate.
In CIP Properties no sum was allowed for further CMCs “because they may not be necessary”. It is unclear how this sits with the “probability” test for contingencies in Yeo.
These cases raise as many questions as they provide answers. Unfortunately this is far from the last word on the thorny subject of cost budgeting in practice.
0330 161 1234