header-logo header-logo

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

Green light for revising budgets up

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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

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