Home / Dispute Resolution / Costs and funding / Costs budgeting and costs management

Legal News

Disparity between costs budgets—proportionality (Brown v BCA Trading)

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

Published on: 20 July 2016

Published by a LexisNexis Dispute Resolution expert

Table of contents

Practical implications
What is the background to this case?
What proportionality issues did the budgets raise?
What observations did the Registrar make?
What orders did the Registrar make?
Case details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case considers the practical implications of the reasonableness and proportionality tests when considering cost management orders (CMOs) in relation to substantially agreed costs budgets containing significant disparities for trial preparation and trial attendance for both parties. It provides an insight into the process that will be undertaken to address disparities and where they might be considered disproportional. The case also provides a landmark ruling regarding the use of predictive coding which is the subject of a separate news report.

Popular documents

Security for costs—what is it, its use and the court's discretion

Security for costs—what is it, its use and the court's discretionThis Practice Note considers security for costs under CPR 25. It explains what an order for security for costs is, who it may be sought against as well as the circumstances in which such an order is generally not available. It

Fixed costs—position prior to 1 October 2023

Fixed costs—position prior to 1 October 2023This Practice Note considers the fixed costs position prior to 1 October 2023 under Part 45. It explains the purpose of fixed costs and the different categories of claims and costs to which they are applicable.Note, the extension of the fixed costs came

Appeals—costs recovery

Appeals—costs recoveryThis Practice Note provides information on the appeal court’s power to order costs, whether these costs can be summarily assessed and/or ordered on an indemnity basis. whether it is possible to recover the costs incurred during an appeal. It considers the Supreme Court’s power

Costs budgeting—completing Precedent T (particulars for varying a costs budget)

Costs budgeting—completing Precedent T (particulars for varying a costs budget)This Practice Note provides assistance in completing Precedent T. This is the court form that the parties are required to use when seeking party agreement, and/or court approval for a change to their agreed/approved