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 phase, the budgeted sum was £24,928, but in the bill the

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

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