- Varying costs budgets and ‘significant developments' (Churchill v Boot)
- Practical implications
- Why was an appeal being made?
- Why was permission to appeal refused?
- First ground—significant development
- Second ground
- Third ground
- Court details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Picken J provides some insight as to what the court will consider when determining whether there has been a ‘significant development’, as required by CPR PD 3E, para 7.5, so as to justify an order to vary an approved costs budget. Increases in the value of the claim, adjournment of trial and an increase in the length of trial are not automatically seen as significant developments, the court will consider the circumstances as to the reasons for the increase or adjournment in determining whether they justify granting a variation.
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