Costs budgeting and costs management

Costs management is the process undertaken by the court to manage both the steps to be taken and the costs to be incurred by the parties so as to further the overriding objective (CPR 3.12(2)).

Costs management is achieved through costs budgeting and costs management orders (CMOs), which essentially seek to ensure proactive and proportionate costs management. This topic specifically deals with costs budgets and CMOs.

Costs budgets are documents prepared for the court which contain the information required for costs budgeting, inputted into a costs budget known as Precedent H. The importance of costs budgeting is that at the end of the proceedings the successful party can recover costs under the approved budget within 14 days of the conclusion of the hearing. This is designed to avoid the time, expense and delay caused by detailed assessment where costs cannot be agreed.

CMOs record the cost budgets as agreed by the parties or the court approved budget, where there is a failure by the parties to agree—a CMO can be made at any time.

Note, costs budgeting does not apply to cases that

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

Popular documents