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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll