header-logo header-logo

Green light for revising budgets up

02 January 2019
Issue: 7822 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Bar for what constitutes a significant development should not be set too high

Claimants can revise budgets upwards if more disclosure than expected is needed, representing a ‘significant development’, a High Court master has held.

Ruling in Ohoud Al-Najar (a protected party) v the Cumberland Hotel [2018] EWHC 3532 (QB), Master Davison agreed a 78% budget increase of £49,185 to £111,811 after the expected 20 to 30 lever arch files of documents turned out to be 55 lever arch files. He outlined five broad principles, including that whether a development is ‘significant’ is a question of fact; if what occurred should reasonably have been anticipated it will probably not be ‘significant’ or a ‘development’; and the development can occur in the normal course of litigation.

‘As a matter of policy, it seems to me that the bar for what constitutes a significant development should not be set too high because, otherwise, parties preparing a budget would always err on the side of caution by making overgenerous (to them) assessments of what was to be anticipated,’ he said.

The case concerned a shocking incident where a violent criminal gained access to the rooms where nine members of an extended family were sleeping and attacked three sisters with a claw hammer, causing serious facial and head injuries. Liability was complex.

City University’s Professor Dominic Regan (pictured), NLJ columnist, said: ‘This is a rare and overdue steer as to when a budget can properly be varied.

‘We are more than five years on from implementation and yet practitioners stumble around as if blindfolded.’

Francis Kendall, vicechairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL), said: ‘The ACL’s surveys over the five years since costs budgeting came into force have consistently shown that solicitors are not making enough applications to revise their budgets, when we all know in practice how often they are blown off course by events that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time they were set. Failing to revise a budget in such circumstances is just storing up problems for the later assessment of costs.

‘We urge solicitors to learn from this case and keep in mind the need to update their budgets when the situation demands it.’

Issue: 7822 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll