- Repeated adjournments do not justify increase to costs budget (Hutson and others v Tata Steel UK Ltd)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Retrospective revision of a costs budget
- Had there been significant developments?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This is a group litigation case. The claimants significantly exceeded the budgeted allowances in respect of two phases of their costs budget and at the conclusion of the first stage of the litigation applied to retrospectively increase these phases. The claimants’ case was that an unsuccessful application made by the defendant had caused the procedural timetable to be extended and had caused additional unforeseen expenditure. The court concluded that the evidence in support of the application was inadequate and the effect of the defendant’s application was overstated. The costs budget was therefore not increased. Written by Alex Bagnall, costs lawyer and technical manager 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