header-logo header-logo

13 September 2017 / Francis Kendall
Issue: 7761 / Categories: Features , Costs
printer mail-detail

Costs budgeting: advantage Sir Cliff?

Master Marsh has made two important decisions on the approach to budgeting for the price of one, says Francis Kendall

  • Removal of the cap on the costs of budgeting & rejection of the request to comment on Sir Cliff’s incurred costs.

Just before the summer exodus, Chief Master Marsh further solidified the position of costs budgeting in litigation with two common-sense decisions in Sir Cliff Richard’s case against the BBC and South Yorkshire Police over coverage of a police raid on his home (Sir Cliff Richard OBE v The British Broadcasting Corporation and Another [2017] EWHC 1666 (Ch)).

First, Master Marsh applied the little (if ever) used provision to remove the cap on the costs of budgeting and second, he took an eminently sensible approach to the seeking of ‘comments’ on the significant incurred costs included within the, not insignificant, budget of the famous crooner.

Budgeting

In order to come to the first decision, Master Marsh needed to satisfy himself that that

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll