From 1 April 2013 costs budgets and costs management orders are introduced for most multi-track claims. They place a limit on the amount of recoverable costs and are part of a raft of reforms introduced following the report of Sir Rupert Jackson on the cost of litigation.
A key question is likely to be whether an approved costs budget can be amended to rectify errors. In Murray & Anr v Neil Dowlman Architecture Ltd  EWHC 872 (TCC) the court (Coulson J) held that it will usually be ‘extremely difficult’ to do so, even where the other party has not been misled or suffered prejudice. The court would be slow to revise approved budgets merely because, after the event, it is said that particular items had been omitted or under-valued. To hold otherwise would make a nonsense of the whole costs management exercise.
Although the application related to the pre-1 April 2013 costs pilot scheme in the TCC, the court held that the new provisions in CPR 3.12-3.18 and 3EPD.1 were ‘very similar’, heralding a tough approach to future applications.
C’s application for relief from sanction was held to be inappropriate because there was no sanction from which C required relief (detailed assessment being months or years away). In any event, changes to CPR r.3.9(1) meant the court would be less ready to grant relief from sanctions for procedural defaults.
However, C’s application to rectify was allowed on the narrow point that Form HB (the then prescribed costs budget form) included a series of tick-boxes which (if ticked) permitted a party to exclude specific items from the costs budget. C had not used the form and so had failed to notice there was a box to be ticked. This feature is cured by new form Precedent H which automatically excludes from the costs budget VAT (if applicable), court fees, success fees and ATE premiums (if applicable).
Derek Kerr / 1st May 2013
The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.
If you like what you've read but want to know more about how we can help you, simply call us:
Alternatively you can send us an email and a member of our team will contact you as soon as possible.