header-logo header-logo

High Court makes important decision on proportionality

10 October 2013
Issue: 7579 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Coulson J declines “unreasonable” costs budgets in professional negligence claim 

The High Court has declined to accept “unreasonable” costs budgets on both sides of a £1.6m professional negligence claim, in an important decision on proportionality.

In Willis v MRJ Rundell [2013] EWHC 2923 (TCC), a claim against a firm of construction professionals, both sides submitted their costs budgets in December 2012—£821,000 for the claimants, and £616,000 for the defendants. Mr Justice Coulson expressed concern that the figures were high.

The case went to mediation and the trial was adjourned. Coulson J then ordered a case management hearing solely on costs management, by which time the combined budgets exceeded £1.6m.

Coulson J declined to approve the budgets, stating: “It seems to me that one test of proportionality is whether the trial is likely to be an end in itself, or merely a lesser part of the process, which the parties will use in order to put themselves in the strongest position to argue that, subsequently, the other side should pay all or most of their costs. 

“When the costs on each side are much higher than the amount claimed/recovered, the latter is almost inevitable. I have no doubt that that will be the case here. For those reasons, therefore, I conclude that the costs shown in the costs budgets are disproportionate and unreasonable.”

Coulson J was critical of some of the items on the claimant’s budget, which were “said to be both incurred and estimated, without it being clear which is which, and without any breakdown of either”. 

The allowance for experts’ fees were put at £100,000 “before any account is taken of their involvement at the trial…I would have expected to see a figure something like half the amount actually included in the costs budget,” he said. “Unhappily, my recent experience is that the amount of the experts’ fees in cases like this is often out of all proportion to the assistance provided.”

However, practitioners will be relieved by Coulson J’s comments that the absence of an approved budget do not necessarily mean no costs are recoverable.

Issue: 7579 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll