header-logo header-logo

17 April 2023
Issue: 8021 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Costs, budgets, judges’ instincts & suggestions for reform

Litigators should know how much any case is going to cost before they even begin the process of budgeting, Sir Colin Birss, the Deputy Head of Civil Justice, has told an Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL) roundtable

Sir Colin said: ‘Cases are really not that different from each other. My old clerk could guess pretty well what the case was going to cost. We seem to have bought into the idea that for every single straightforward or even relatively complicated case, one cannot say roughly what it is going to cost. I do not believe it.’

Susan Dunn, founder of third-party funder Harbour Litigation Funding, agreed: ‘We get 40 new inquiries every month. I can tell you what each one of those is going to cost.’

District Judge Simon Middleton, a regional costs judge who leads Judicial College training on costs, said judges are told to trust their instincts on budgets.

However, ACL chair Jack Ridgway countered that, even where the claimant lawyer has experience of a particular defendant in a certain type of case, they can sometimes take an unexpected new approach.

‘You are looking at two boxers and you are asking one boxer to say, “You do not know what kind of punch he is going to throw, but I want you to predict it and you have to be right every time”, because that is civil litigation, ultimately. It is two people trying to knock each other out.’

Moreover, Dunn told the roundtable that many lawyers struggle with budgeting, failing to use data from past cases to predict future ones.

King’s Bench Division Master David Cook highlighted that the circumstances in which costs-capping can be deployed as a judicial tool ‘now seem to be virtually non-existent. Sometimes there are times when you say to yourself that, really, what you need to solve this problem is just to put a cost cap on it’.

The roundtable heard that judges have also become very strict on allowing parties to depart from their budgets at the end of the case under CPR rule 3.18, which allows this when there is ‘good reason’ to do so. Victoria Morrison-Hughes, a costs lawyer at Integral Legal Costs, said: ‘The 3.18 get-out clause has become tighter and tighter. When budgeting was first introduced, you had some confidence in explaining to clients that you might be able to argue good reason. That confidence is diminishing.’

Suggestions for reform included allowing underspends on one phase of a budget to be offset against overspends in others, requiring parties to certify at the pre-trial review that they are still in budget, and widening the use of costs capping.

The roundtable took place in April to mark the 10th anniversary of the introduction of costs management.

Issue: 8021 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

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

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

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