- Variations to costs budgets—principles surrounding significant developments and the promptness of the application (Persimmon Homes Ltd v Osborne Clark LLP)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- The developer’s submissions
- Osbourne Clark’s submissions
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Master Kaye considers costs budgeting and the approach that the court should take when considering whether to permit an applicant to vary its costs budget. The court found that the wording of CPR 3.15A implements a mandatory two-stage threshold; there must be a significant development and any application must be made promptly. It was noted that, whether an application is made promptly will depend on the facts of each case, however the court should not approach costs budgeting retrospectively. In the event that an application to vary a costs budget is dismissed, an applicant may still succeed on good reason to depart at detailed assessment. Written by Claire Winn, costs lawyer, at Paragon Costs 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