Costs management and assessment cases—2016 in review [Archived]
Costs management and assessment cases—2016 in review [Archived]

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

  • Costs management and assessment cases—2016 in review [Archived]
  • Costs management and costs budgeting—what do you need to know?
  • Costs assessment—what do you need to know?
  • Costs recovery limited to court fees (Jamadar v Bradford Teaching Hospitals)
  • Removal of cases from costs management regime (Signia Wealth Ltd v Marlborough Trust)
  • Varying costs budgets—what constitutes a significant development (Churchill v Boot)?
  • Proportionality—disparity between costs budgets as a basis on which the challenge costs proportionality (Brown v BCA Trading)
  • Proportionality—budgeting for additional liabilities (Various Claimants v MGN)
  • Proportionality—assessing the value of the claim (Marks and Spencer v Asda)
  • Costs budgets—approval in part (Wright v Rowland)
  • more

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published.

Costs management and costs budgeting—what do you need to know?

The issue of costs is important for practitioners and needs to be balanced alongside the legal issues of the proceedings and management of the strategy of the case. For many in practice there is a dearth of specific guidance in the rules and practice directions, such that practitioners need to always be aware of developing guidance from case law in this area. Here are some of the key practical considerations arising from cases in 2016:

  1. CPR 3.13 states that a party will only be able to recover court fees if they do not file their costs budgets in time. While the draconian approach in the high profile decision in Mitchell has softened with the principles set out in Denton v White, the Court of Appeal decision in Jamadar v Bradford Teaching Hospitals shows that CPR 3.13 still has teeth, see below

  2. in Signia Wealth Ltd v Marlborough Trust the court considered its discretion to remove a case from the costs management regime set out in Part 3, see below

  3. CPR PD