header-logo header-logo

Costs budgeting: a risky business

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll