header-logo header-logo

02 May 2019 / Simon Gibbs
Issue: 7838 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Re-counting the costs

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

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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll