header-logo header-logo

Cost budgeting: Plain sailing ahead?

06 January 2021 / Adam Grant
Issue: 7915 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
35150
Revisions & variations: Adam Grant outlines how to adjust your approved costs budget
  • Life pre-precedent T: attempting to streamline and standardise.
  • The new regime.
  • The form: fairly self-explanatory.
  • Thoughts for the future: plain sailing?

Some of the most common questions I get asked by my clients involve when and how do they go about revising their previously approved budgets during the course of litigation. These are never easy to answer given the ambiguities surrounding such terms as ‘significant development’ or ‘good reason’ and the court’s powers to make rulings on costs for work already incurred. The Civil Procedure Rules Committee has attempted to address some of these issues by introducing a new ‘Precedent T’ as part of their 122nd update to the Civil Procedure rules which came into force in October.

Life pre-precedent T

The previous process for revising an approved budget stems from Practice Direction 3E. The parties are obliged to revise their budgets in respect of future costs (upwards or downwards) should significant development in litigation warrant

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll