Writing in NLJ this week, Nathan Cameron, council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers and global costs lead at the Medical Protection Society, examines a warning from M L Technology v BEAT Sam.
The claimants sought an additional £259,069 for disclosure, against an original budget of £97,768, alongside increases for witness statements and trial preparation. Although the defendants agreed, the High Court refused approval.
The claimants faced a ‘heavy burden’ to justify the increase. Their explanations failed to demonstrate sufficient value from the extra disclosure, while much of the expenditure had already occurred.
Cameron stresses that costs management remains a judicial function. Under CPR 3.15A, practitioners must identify significant developments, quantify their impact and act promptly. Waiting until work is complete risks losing the opportunity for court control over future expenditure.
