- Master restricts scope of disclosure but declines to record comments on £800k of incurred costs (King Security Systems Ltd v King)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Request for further information
- Costs and case management issues
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The parties were engaged in attritional litigation involving a claim for approximately £120,000 and a counterclaim for £70,000 in liquidated damages plus unquantified general damages. The matter was listed for a costs and case management conference (CCMC ) to consider a) disclosure issues b) an application for an order compelling a response to a CPR 18 request and c) costs and case management. The claimant’s budget claimed incurred costs of £579,000 the defendant’s budget claimed incurred costs of £226,000. The parties budgeted for future costs of £672,000 and £510,000 respectively. The court determined that, although the case involved serious reputational issues, chain of enquiry-type disclosure under Model E of CPR PD 51U was not proportionate. The CPR 18 request was held to be an inappropriate use of the CPR 18 procedure and so an order compelling a response was not made. The court observed that both parties’ incurred costs were disproportionate but declined to record any comments to this effect. The length of the trial was reduced from what the parties had agreed, and the parties’ budgets were then fixed. Written by Alex Bagnall, costs lawyer at Total Legal Solutions.
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