header-logo header-logo

Re-counting the costs

02 May 2019 / Simon Gibbs
Issue: 7838 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
What constitutes a ‘good reason’ to depart from a costs budget? Simon Gibbs examines the evidence
  • In Barts Health NHS Trust v Salmon  the judge held that the failure to complete a phase was a ‘good reason’ to depart from the budget.

We are now starting to see an increasing number of decisions coming through as to what amounts to a ‘good reason’ to depart from a costs management order.

The decision in Barts Health NHS Trust v Salmon [2019] Lexis Citation 27 makes for particularly interesting reading.

This was a clinical negligence case. A costs management order had been made approving the claimant’s budget in the sum of £155,673. The claim settled before trial and where not all the phases of the original budget had been completed.

The claimant served a bill of costs where the costs claimed for a number of the phases were less than the amounts allowed in the approved budget for the corresponding phases.

For example, in respect of the experts phase, the budgeted sum was £24,928,

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll