Dispute Resolution analysis: Andrew Sutcliffe KC has provided a wide-ranging analysis of a number of aspects of costs principles in a consequentials hearing following a trial in which the claimant succeeded on one of two parts to the claim and narrowly beat a Part 36 offer made shortly before trial. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

Costs in planning appeals do not follow the event. An inspector/the Secretary of State/Welsh Ministers have a wide statutory discretion to award costs against any party to an appeal. However, the Secretary of State/Welsh Ministers have published policy on costs awards which is applied on appeal decisions. Government guidance on costs awards in planning appeals England Guidance on costs awards for planning appeals in England is set out in Planning Practice Guidance: Appeals (PPG). Wales In Wales, the relevant guidance is contained in Development Management Manual—section 12 Annex: Award of Costs (the DMM). Purpose of costs awards in planning appeals An award of costs is an order which states that one party shall pay to another party the costs, which may be in full or in part, which have been incurred by the receiving party during the process by which the Secretary of State/Welsh Ministers/inspector’s decision is reached. The costs order states the broad extent of the expenses the party can recover from the party against whom the award is made. It does not

Costs payable by one litigant to another litigant under the terms of an order made by the court.

This Practice Note considers what a budget discussion (BD) report is, when a report is required and the recommended format it should take (Precedent R). It also provides guidance on completing Precedent R and notes potential issues in multi-party litigation. A series of frequently asked questions (FAQs) and answers are provided on BD reports and potential issues. What are costs budget discussion (BD) reports? The costs management regime, introduced as part of the Jackson Reforms, requires the parties to co-operate and seek to agree each other’s costs budget. Where there is such agreement, the court will record it on the costs management order (CMO) (CPR 3.15(2)(a) and CPR 3.15(2)(c)) and where there is no agreement, the court must review the costs in dispute and make any revisions it considers appropriate, before approving the budget. For more information, see Practice Notes: Costs management and costs budgeting—general principles and Costs budgeting—courts' approach. Prior to 2016, there was no formal process for the parties to seek agreement or for presenting any disagreements about budgets to the court. On

DR analysis: Master Kay QC has provided an insight into how to deal with costs budgeting prior to the CMC itself and what happens when there is a change of circumstances in the run up to the CMC. The case also provides warnings to practitioners as to (1) the need to ensure clarity in consent orders and (2) when considering whether to agree directions in a consent order in multitrack cases where the court will provide a standard directions order the parties can end up with conflicting orders. In addition, if prior to costs budgets being agreed or approved seeking to agree directions is perhaps premature.

This Practice Note provides information on the costs budgeting pilot scheme under CPR PD 51ZG1 for certain Business and Property Courts and for certain business and property work in the county courts. The pilot scheme is intended to provide a simplified approach to costs budgeting and applies to ‘relevant claims’ that are issued on or after 6 April 2025 but prior to 6 April 2028. It does not apply to claims brought by children. Many of the costs management provisions under CPR 3, Section II and CPR PD 3D apply to the pilot scheme under CPR PD 51ZG1. As such, along with the guidance (below) it is useful to consider costs budgeting and costs budgeting generally. For further information, see: Costs budgeting and costs management—overview. What is the costs budgeting pilot scheme under CPR PD 51ZG1? The costs budgeting pilot scheme under CPR PD 51ZG1 has been introduced to test new approaches to costs budgeting in certain Business and Property Courts and for certain business and property work in the county court. It applies

This Practice Note provides information on the costs budgeting pilot scheme under CPR PD 51ZG2. The pilot scheme is intended to provide a simplified approach to costs budgeting and applies to relevant multi-track claims that are issued on or after 6 April 2025 but prior to 6 April 2028. It does not apply to claims brought by children. Many of the costs management provisions under CPR 3, Section II and CPR PD 3D apply to the pilot scheme under CPR PD 51ZG1. As such, along with the guidance (below) it is useful to consider costs management and costs budgeting generally. For further information, see: Costs budgeting and costs management—overview. What is the costs budgeting pilot scheme under CPR PD 51ZG2? The costs budgeting pilot scheme under CPR PD 51ZG2 has been introduced to test new approaches to costs budgeting. It came into force on 6 April 2025 which is at the same time as the costs budgeting pilot scheme under CPR PD 51ZG1. The latter being a pilot scheme for costs budgeting in certain

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and for historical purposes only. CPR provisions As part of the Jackson Reforms the courts are required to undertake not only case management but also costs management. The costs management is to be achieved through costs budgeting, which essentially ensures active and proportionate case management. The provisions for costs budgeting are set out in section II of CPR 3 and CPR PD 3E. As this replaced the previous rules on costs estimates we have dealt with it in the same place and renaming the topic: Costs estimates and budgeting. Note: the provisions in relation to costs budgeting initially set out in SI 2013/262 were changed very quickly by SI 2013/515 so that: • the Heads of the Chancery and Queen's Bench Divisions are able to determine classes of cases to which costs budgeting will not apply in their divisions. For the announcement about the change click here • CPR 3.12(1)(b) provides that the costs budgeting regime will not apply to cases in the Chancery Division or in the TCC and

What is 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. A CMO is a court order that controls the costs to be incurred in the litigation with the aim of ensuring that those costs stay within the agreed or approved amounts of a party’s approved costs budget and adhere to the principles of proportionality. For further information on costs management and costs budgeting generally, see Practice Note: Costs management and costs budgeting—general principles. What are costs budgets? The below is a high level summary on completing a costs budget and the points to consider. For more detailed guidance (in addition to the below), see Practice Notes: Costs budgeting—completing Precedent H (costs budget) and Cost budgets—form, content and practical considerations. A costs budget is a document

This Practice Note sets out the position from 1 October 2020. For an insight into the changes that were made prior to 1 October 2020, see Practice Note: Tracker—costs management and costs budgeting review and future changes—Significant changes to costs budget rules (1 October 2020). This Practice Note considers the steps to be taken by a party following the approval of a cost budget by the judge and also considers whether an approved costs budget can be appealed. After a budget is approved Following approval of the costs budgets, the following steps need to be undertaken: • re-filing and re-serving the costs budget—where the figures in the costs budget have been revised by the court during a costs management conference, there is a requirement for the party to re-file and re-serve their costs budget in the form approved with the revised figures. This must be annexed to the court order approving it (CPR 3.15(7)) • inform the client—the client should be informed

This Practice Note provides guidance on completing Precedent H (costs budget), which is the form which should be used to set out a party’s budgeted costs in accordance with CPR 3 and CPR PD 3D. Save in exceptional circumstances, the parties are not expected to lodge any other documents than Precedent H and the budget discussion report (Precedent R). Where the monetary value of the case is less than £50,000 or the costs claimed are less than £25,000, the parties must only complete the first page of Precedent H. Save in exceptional circumstances, the parties are not expected to lodge any other documents than Precedent H and the budget discussion report (Precedent R). Where the monetary value of the case is less than £50,000 or the costs claimed are less than £25,000, the parties must only complete the first page of Precedent H. This Practice Note provides assistance in completing Precedent H, the court form setting out a costs budget. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Cost budgets—form,

This Practice Note provides assistance in completing Precedent T. This is the court form that the parties are required to use when seeking party agreement, and/or court approval for a change to their agreed/approved budgeted costs. Prior to 1 October 2020, parties were not required to complete a costs precedent when seeking to vary a costs budget. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Costs budgets—revision and variation. Which CPR provisions apply? The relevant rules are found in CPR 3.15A(1)–(6) and guidance in CPR PD 3D, para 11 also applies. What is Precedent T? Precedent T is a court form that a party is required to use when making revisions, either upwards or downwards, in respect of its budgeted costs (CPR 3.15A(3)). The party seeking to make the proposed variations (the revising party) should seek to agree those variations with the other party and must file the Precedent T at court, along with the last approved or agreed costs budget, and provide an explanation of