Costs News

16 March 2017
go back

Trial judges should not back budget overspends, says High Court

Trial judges should “not seek to trammel the costs judge’s jurisdiction” by giving an indication on whether the receiving party had good reason to depart from their budget, unless there are specific issues they want to raise, the High Court has said.

Mr Stephen Furst QC, a deputy High Court judge, was ruling in Car Giant Ltd and Anor v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham[2017] EWHC 464 (TCC). In the main ruling, he gave judgment in favour of the claimant for £179,125 plus interest in a claim for damages for dilapidations following the expiry of the defendant’s (LBHF) lease.

However, the claimant failed to beat the defendant’s part 36 offer and so has to pay the council’s costs from 7 May 2014.

LBHF has an approved costs budget of £110,000, but Mr Furst recorded that it has spent an extra £89,000, mainly on expert fees, but also trial preparation, trial and mediation. It sought an indication from the judge that these were reasonably incurred.

Mr Furst said: “In my view, while there are authorities showing that the courts can give such indications as are sought here, the court should be slow to do so.”

Noting that the circumstances in which a court should find ‘good reason’ to depart from the approved budget were likely to be considered by the Court of Appeal shortly in Merrix, he continued: “It is unclear whether the trial judge in making such comments should temper them in the light of CPR part 3.18 and, in any event, if such comments or observations are made as to what weight a costs judge would or should place on them.

“I can understand that there might be cases where the trial judge has a particular view of costs or on an aspect of costs, having conducted the trial or where he has had to decide an issue which is directly relevant to the assessment of costs.

“Absent such circumstances, it would seem to me that a court should not seek to trammel the costs judge’s jurisdiction, particularly where the costs judge has much greater experience of such matters than I have.”

In this case, the judge said, there was nothing in the nature of the applications to exceed the costs budget which could not be explained “equally well” to the costs judge and so he declined to give any indication.


This post was posted in ACL e-Bulletin


Sue Nash   25/09/2017 at 20:56

It appears that RNB is set for a HC appeal - watch this space! Meanwhile, RIP Solicitors Journal which - sadly - has just ceased publication after 180 years

News Flash   28/09/2017 at 12:18

Another pointless case, why resist a payment on account when your paying the opponents costs in the end anyway? these types of disputes should be a thing of the past!

MB   05/10/2017 at 13:18

Why has the focus returned to the SCCO "going completely digital". Was the electronic bill not extended to all Courts!

Dragon   12/10/2017 at 13:40

Well said Jim. Too often we see clinical negligence claims settle for say £2k only to be followed by a bill for say £50k. Thankfully there are some excellent costs lawyers out there who battle those costs down, but the situation remains outrageous.

Simon Mccarthy   13/10/2017 at 13:56

Dragon - your comment overlooks the fact that it is almost invariably your clients - the Defendants - who cause those scandalous costs by intransigently, and inexplicably, refusing to come to the negotiating table until too late, when the costs have already been racked up; it is their failure to take a realistic view to claims at the outset which necessitates the costs. This faux horror is therefore hard to stomach, especially when one considers the equivalent costs being incurred by government bodies (funded by us tax payers of course) often to the tune of 4-5 times the sums you mention, and the many Defendant costs draftsmen shelling peas for their piece of the pie. Sadly, it is the same old story of 'pay peanuts get monkeys' and, unless and until government wake up and start paying competent people to deal with claims pragmatically, the UK public purse will continue to haemorrhage billions of pounds that we can ill afford. Still, as long as it keeps Defendant costs draftsmen/lawyers in business?....

Northern Costs Monkey   13/10/2017 at 14:31

Just shows how ridiculous the whole budgeting process is. The reason firms generally don’t make applications to revise their budgets is because the bar set for varying them is absurdly high. No one even knows what a “significant development” is. A load of nonsense in my opinion. The situation we have now is that firms just don’t bother revising the budgets because in all likelihood it won’t be accepted. Meaning firms can be stuck with an “approved” budget that is a couple of years out of date, was drafted before the directions were even agreed, and is no longer fit for purpose. What should happen is that budgets should be drafted after the first CMC, and there should be a rule put in place that parties are able to freely revise a previously agreed or approved budget every six months, regardless of significant developments, with the updated budget to be considered at a costs management conference listed for a later date. That after all was the whole point of budgeting, was it not? Pragmatic costs management?

Simon   16/10/2017 at 16:47

I find this whole issue completely unnecessarily. Independent Midwives had commercial insurance suitable for their needs, however to try and save money they chose to try and become self-funding and cancelled their insurance without fully understanding the risks and exposures. I cannot see why it is in the public interest to bring a JR (and why the costs should be capped) when commercial solutions were available, however the issue is that as a group they didn't want to pay the costs of commercial insurance.

Dragon 2   18/10/2017 at 08:07

Great points Simon. Fully agree. Courts are fully aware of how these matters are conducted by those representing defendant. Surely though the money for damages and costs comes out of the medical suppliers' insurers' account, not tax pot nor nursing fund. Maybe that's why there is such a drive to extend the fixed costs regime to clin neg claims. Just a thought......

Mel B   19/10/2017 at 12:05

'Like' Simon McCarthy's comment

Cath Hart   21/10/2017 at 09:32

In reply to Simon's comment (which I thought at first meant this situation could be resolved) my understanding is that professional indemnity insurance for independent midwives has been withdrawn, but even if available the premium would be in the region of 20-30k annually (reference so I would disagree that it was cancelled to "save money" - these premiums exceed many of the midwives salaries so it was simply unworkable without government assistance. When professional indemnity insurance became mandatory under the EU directive in 2014 the independent midwives did appeal to the government for funding but this was rejected due to the low number of women involved so was not thought to represent value for money for the taxpayer. (reference:

Add your comment

go back