header-logo header-logo

17 November 2017 / Francis Kendall
Issue: 7770 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs , Budgeting
printer mail-detail

Costs budgeting: a risky business

nlj_7770_kendall

Trivial, serious or significant? Francis Kendall reviews recent excuses for breaches & shares the consequences

If parties and their lawyers have learnt just one thing about costs budgeting by now, you would have hoped that it is the importance of getting their budget in on time. But still parties are missing the deadline and then—facing a budget limited to the applicable court fee—have to roll the dice with the Denton test when they apply for relief from sanctions. It is worth reviewing two cases from the summer which led to very different results.

No sensible excuse

In Lakhani & Anor v Mahmud & Ors [2017] EWHC 1713 (Ch), [2017] All ER (D) 55 (Jul) the defendants served their £50,000 budget just one day late, but only applied for relief at the case and costs management conference (CCMC). HH Judge Lochrane in Central London County Court acknowledged that, in certain circumstances, being one day late with a costs budget ‘might not be regarded

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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll