- Application of CPR 3.14 to incomplete costs budgets (Page v RGC Restaurants Ltd)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Had the master erred in law?
- Disapplying the CPR 3.14 sanction
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The lengthy and detailed judgment in this case, which is described as exceptional, surrounds the complex interpretation of the rules and exercise of discretion surrounding a costs budget filed by the claimant, Mr Page, which addressed the phases up to and including CMC/PTR, therefore excluding the trial preparation and trial phases. This was a conscious decision by Mr Page’s legal team and one canvassed with the defendant, RGC Restaurants Ltd (RGC). Indeed, both parties had agreed their respective budgets in relation to incurred and budgeted costs up to CMC/PTR stage. At the CMC hearing, Master Thornett applied the sanction under CPR 3.14 and limited Mr Page’s budget to applicable court fees only, in relation to the entirety of the budget. Following Mr Page appealing, which included an application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.10, Mr Justice Walker allowed the appeal, after a detailed analysis of the rules, consideration of an estoppel point raised by himself as to whether RGC were estopped from going back on its agreement of Mr Page’s budget and especially concluding that the master erred in law in failing to apply correctly the sanction, by ignoring the extent to which the approach to the budgets had been canvassed between the parties and the extent of compliance with the rules.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial