header-logo header-logo

28 September 2017 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 7763 / Categories: Features , Costs , Budgeting
printer mail-detail

NLJ costs revision course (Pt 2)

nlj_7763_regan

This week, Dominic Regan addresses estimates & revisits the problem of incurred costs

  • A costs management order is always predicated upon the standard basis.
  • Merrix and Harrison show courts cannot depart from the agreed figure for estimated costs without good reason.
  • What to do about incurred costs is a lingering issue in costs management.

Budgeting is brilliant except when it isn’t. The concept whereby the proposed spend of each party is scrutinised at the outset is sound. Grandiose spending plans can be slapped down before the money is spent, before the damage is done.

In Merrix v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust [2017] 1 Costs LR 91 the crucial issue was the relationship between an approved budget at the outset and a detailed assessment at the conclusion of the same action. The defendant asserted that, while relevant, a budget was not conclusive and so a full blown detailed assessment remained essential. The receiving party understandably argued

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll