header-logo header-logo

15 November 2012
Issue: 7538 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Costs may cause chaos

Call for lawyers to get a handle on litigation funding

Lawyers risk losing thousands of pounds in fees and legal costs unless they get a handle on litigation funding, costs lawyers and barristers have warned.

A panel of experts recently reviewed the costs-management pilots in the mercantile courts and technology and construction courts at The Future of Costs Seminar, co-hosted by 3PB Barristers and Cost Advocates (CA). The pilots require lawyers from both sides to provide a detailed estimate of incurred and future costs in the litigation via a nine-page Precedent HB form.

The panel estimated that lawyers in the pilots are spending an average of 2.5 hours filling out a Precedent HB form, and warned that getting budgets wrong could be disastrous.

They highlighted the case of Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 90218 (Costs), where the budget for disclosure and witness statements was approved at £23,737. The final amount claimed in the bill of costs was £316,447, resulting in a loss in costs of £292,710.

Jon Lord, principal costs lawyer at CA, said: “The Precedent HB form looks straightforward enough but the thought process behind it is a lot more complicated. Lawyers are required to provide the breakdown for pre-action costs, disclosure, witness statements, expert reports, fee earners’ time, counsel’s fees, contingents and other disbursements. Trying to calculate these is a very complex procedure.”

Emilie Woolley, senior costs solicitor at CA, said: “Law firms need to be prepared for the shift from exchanging broad estimates of costs already incurred to prospective budgeting. Lawyers need to be prepared for the strategic and tactical deviousness that may become apparent, and be ready to scrutinise their opponent’s budgets without divulging their own secrets.”

However, costs budgets could lead to greater certainty and transparency if lawyers prepare ahead of the reform, she said.

Graeme Sampson, barrister at 3PB, warned firms that failure to follow costs-management procedure could result in adverse costs orders.

Issue: 7538 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll