header-logo header-logo

16 January 2020 / Kris Mohindra
Issue: 7870 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Theory versus practice: 109th amendment

14084
Rule change provides practitioners with more questions than answers, says Kris Mohindra
  • Key changes effected by implementation of the 109th amendment.

Since costs budgeting began in 2013, practitioners have relied upon evolving case authority and Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules for guidance and clarification of any points of ambiguity relating to costs management.

The 109th amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) came in to force as of 1 October 2019. Contained within this amendment was the new Practice Direction 3E, Para 7.4 which reads:

‘As part of the costs management process the court may not approve costs incurred up to and including the date of any costs management hearing. The court may, however, record its comments on those costs and will take those costs into account when considering the reasonableness and proportionality of all budgeted costs.’

The key change here is that incurred costs are now referred to as ‘up to and including the date of any costs management hearing’ where as the previous rules stated ‘before

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll