Too much, too late? Nathan Cameron examines a costly reminder of the court’s control over budget increases
- The judgment in M L Technology Ltd and another company v BEAT Sam Ltd demonstrates that courts can refuse a substantial agreement to a costs budget, even with consent from parties.
- Parties must apply to vary their budget promptly when a significant development occurs, with sufficient and evidenced justification.
The High Court has provided a timely reminder that costs budgeting is not simply a matter for the parties to agree between themselves. In M L Technology Ltd and another company v BEAT Sam Ltd t/a Naurex BEAT Sam and others [2026] EWHC 2142 (Ch), Daniel Alexander KC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division, refused to approve a claimant’s substantial retrospective increase to its costs budget, notwithstanding the defendants’ agreement to the proposed increase.
The decision is significant for practitioners dealing with costs budgets and applications under CPR 3.15A. It demonstrates that party agreement will not necessarily secure judicial approval and that, where a substantial increase is sought
