Costs budgets—multi-party and multi-claim proceedings
Costs budgets—multi-party and multi-claim proceedings

The following Dispute Resolution guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Costs budgets—multi-party and multi-claim proceedings
  • Bespoke system of costs management
  • Costs budgeting and multiple parties
  • Costs budgeting and group litigation
  • Costs budgeting for prospective clients in group litigation
  • Costs budgeting and multiple proceedings

Bespoke system of costs management

The standard costs management scheme does not lend itself well to multi-party/multi-claim litigation either within or outside a Group Litigation Order (GLO). Generally speaking, a bespoke system of costs management is required if costs management is to be made to work in these types of claim.

Chief Master Marsh in Sharp v Blank considered that the court’s power to impose a bespoke or hybrid costs management structure arises out of CPR 3.1(2)(m):

‘There is, in my judgment, ample power pursuant to rule 3.1(2)(m) for the court to create a bespoke costs management arrangement for cases that require it.’

Certain features of bespoke costs management schemes do not fit (or may be inconsistent) with the standard costs management regime. In Various Claimants v MGN, Chief Master Marsh held that it would be wrong to see these schemes as operating in a wholly parallel universe and it was better seen as an adaptation of the standard regime and where there was any uncertainty, the court should look to the standard regime.

When dealing with a bespoke system of costs management for multi-party/multi-claim litigation, proportionality continues to be of central importance to the process of costs management, even though there are greater difficulties applying the concept in such cases (Various Claimants v MGN).

Costs budgeting and multiple parties

There