header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 October 2017 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 7764 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs , Budgeting
printer mail-detail

NLJ costs revision course (Pt 3)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7764_regan

This week, Dominic Regan provides a cut out & keep guide to costs budgeting

No doubts

If in doubt as to whether or not you need to file a budget then always produce one. The penalty for default is deliberately draconian. ‘No budget, no costs’ is the penalty imposed by CPR 3.14.

Split trial

If seeking a split trial, perhaps addressing liability only at the outset, produce two budgets. The court might reject the application so protect yourself by also filing one that covers the entirety of the action.

Be timely

File your budget on time. Who will ever forget the Mitchell bloodbath?

Relief application

If you fail to comply with the last point, make an immediate application for relief from the sanction denying you costs. It was made clear in British Gas Trading Ltd v Oak Cash & Carry Ltd [2016] All ER (D) 128 (Mar), [2016] All ER (D) 128 (Mar) that time is of the

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
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’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
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
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
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’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll