header-logo header-logo

Costs, budgets, judges’ instincts & suggestions for reform

17 April 2023
Issue: 8021 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
Litigators should know how much any case is going to cost before they even begin the process of budgeting, Sir Colin Birss, the Deputy Head of Civil Justice, has told an Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL) roundtable

Sir Colin said: ‘Cases are really not that different from each other. My old clerk could guess pretty well what the case was going to cost. We seem to have bought into the idea that for every single straightforward or even relatively complicated case, one cannot say roughly what it is going to cost. I do not believe it.’

Susan Dunn, founder of third-party funder Harbour Litigation Funding, agreed: ‘We get 40 new inquiries every month. I can tell you what each one of those is going to cost.’

District Judge Simon Middleton, a regional costs judge who leads Judicial College training on costs, said judges are told to trust their instincts on budgets.

However, ACL chair Jack Ridgway countered that, even where the claimant lawyer has experience of a particular defendant in a certain type of case, they can sometimes take an unexpected new approach.

‘You are looking at two boxers and you are asking one boxer to say, “You do not know what kind of punch he is going to throw, but I want you to predict it and you have to be right every time”, because that is civil litigation, ultimately. It is two people trying to knock each other out.’

Moreover, Dunn told the roundtable that many lawyers struggle with budgeting, failing to use data from past cases to predict future ones.

King’s Bench Division Master David Cook highlighted that the circumstances in which costs-capping can be deployed as a judicial tool ‘now seem to be virtually non-existent. Sometimes there are times when you say to yourself that, really, what you need to solve this problem is just to put a cost cap on it’.

The roundtable heard that judges have also become very strict on allowing parties to depart from their budgets at the end of the case under CPR rule 3.18, which allows this when there is ‘good reason’ to do so. Victoria Morrison-Hughes, a costs lawyer at Integral Legal Costs, said: ‘The 3.18 get-out clause has become tighter and tighter. When budgeting was first introduced, you had some confidence in explaining to clients that you might be able to argue good reason. That confidence is diminishing.’

Suggestions for reform included allowing underspends on one phase of a budget to be offset against overspends in others, requiring parties to certify at the pre-trial review that they are still in budget, and widening the use of costs capping.

The roundtable took place in April to mark the 10th anniversary of the introduction of costs management.

Issue: 8021 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Fox & Partners—Nikki Edwards

Fox & Partners—Nikki Edwards

Employment boutique strengthens litigation bench with partner hire

Fladgate—Milan Kapadia

Fladgate—Milan Kapadia

Partner appointed to dispute resolution team

Carey Olsen—Louise Stothard

Carey Olsen—Louise Stothard

Employment law offering in Guernsey expands with new hire

NEWS
Law students and graduates can now apply to qualify as solicitors and barristers with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
Peter Kandler’s honorary KC marks long-overdue recognition of a man who helped prise open a closed legal world. In NLJ this week, Roger Smith, columnist and former director of JUSTICE, traces how Kandler founded the UK’s first law centre in 1970, challenging a profession that was largely seen as 'fixers for the rich and apologists for criminals'
back-to-top-scroll