“Plebgate” is a “harsh” warning

The Court of Appeal is likely to take a “hard line” on budget sanctions in the “Plebgate” costs case despite two recent cases granting relief, a senior costs lawyer has predicted.

Master McCloud capped the claimant’s costs at the minimum court fees as a penalty for failing to comply with new costs budgeting rules in time, in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWHC 2355 (QB). 

This left former Cabinet Minister Andrew Mitchell’s legal team drastically short on costs recovery after they sued The Sun for its coverage of Mitchell’s controversial bike ride through Downing Street, over which there was public speculation as to what he may have said to the police officer guarding the gate.

Master McCloud dismissed Mitchell’s lawyers’ excuses, stating “such explanations carry even less weight in the post-Jackson environment”.

Writing for NLJ this week, Murray Heining, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, says: “While I am in favour of a stricter use of sanctions, here the restriction on the budget looks harsh and disproportionate, presenting the defendant with a potentially huge windfall. 

“But what it also demonstrates is that solicitors cannot afford to leave budgeting until the CMC is upon them. They need to bring in expert costs lawyers from the outset and ensure they are part of the litigation team as the matter proceeds.”