Costs budgets – now with sharp teeth. If you want more than your budget, apply.

17 June 2013 by

Jackson_0_0Elvanite Full Circle v. AMEC Earth & Environmental (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 1643 (TCC), Coulson J read judgment

The Jackson reforms, which are designed to stop lawyers spending too much of their clients’ or their opponents’ money, are still but young, and therefore not yielding much in the way of decided cases. But there were some pilot schemes which are very similar, and this case about one such scheme (in the Technology & Construction Court) is an interesting, and tough, example of why costs budgets must be taken seriously.

Elvanite claimed that AMEC had given them negligent planning advice about waste management. Coulson J dismissed the claim. AMEC sought and got their costs. But, from the judge’s judgment on costs, it seems unlikely that they will recover more than 50% of their actual costs. Why?

Prior to starting proceedings, Elvanite took out After The Event Insurance against the risk of having to pay AMEC’s costs, limited to £250,000. Once proceedings has started, Costs Management Orders were made approving Elvanite’s costs budget of £317,333 (£212,533 in respect of costs and £104,800 for the ATE premiums), and the AMEC’s costs budget of £264,708. Apart from a minor increase authorised in January 2013 (to £268,488), no application was made to the court to increase AMEC’s’s costs budget.

About a month before trial, AMEC told their opponents and the court that their present estimate of costs was £531,946- double the sum ordered. But AMEC did not apply to raise its budget.

AMEC then emphatically wins the case – for those, like me, who are interested in the ins and outs of an alleged planning negligence case, see judgment, but I am not expecting a rash of clicks on this particular link.

There is not much learning on such costs budgets. In Silvia Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 19, the Court of Appeal considered a failure in another pilot scheme (defamation) to keep the other side informed about increases in budget, but on the unusual circumstances of the case (and reversing the judge below) decided that it would be unjust to hold the litigant to her budget.The CA added

However, it will rarely, if ever, be appropriate to depart from the budget if to do so would undermine the essential object of the scheme.

Grist to Coulson J’s mill, who had reached a similar view on the issue of principle in Murray and Another v Neil Dowlman Architecture Ltd [2013] EWHC 872 (TCC)

There was a certain amount of debate before Coulson J about whether an order for indemnity costs (as sought by AMEC) might make a difference to the outcome of such an application. The judge said that it might be a good reason for varying the budget, but the question did not arise because he did nor order indemnity costs anyway.

The real issue was – what was the effect of the notified increase in budget – where AMEC had not applied to the Court to increase their budget before the end of the case.

Coulson J said that AMEC had to apply to the Court.

if the defendant wanted the court to approve the significant changes to its costs budget, then it had formally to seek such approval. It was not enough simply to file the material at court. As I have said, coming late to this case, I was entirely reliant on the parties to provide me with the information that I needed properly to manage the trial. I was wholly unaware of the fact that the defendant’s estimate of costs had almost doubled in the weeks before trial. Had I known, I would have put the defendant to its election at the outset of the trial.

And when should a party apply for such an increase

immediately it becomes apparent that the original budget costs have been exceeded by a more than minimal amount.

There was some further debate about whether the other party need show prejudice in response to such an application. The judge was doubtful about this, but found prejudice in Elvanite going into the trial believing that its ATE insurance cover was essentially adequate, only to be told that it was potentially £250,000 short. This of course depends where you start. Should Elvanite have sought more cover when it received the pre-trial increase in budget from AMEC – or was it entitled, as the judge found, to await AMEC’s application and then respond?

The judge went on to find that there was no good reason to allow the increase in budget and that in any event AMEC could not justify the massive increase (from £30,000 to £200,000) in experts costs.

So a cautionary tale. It will be interesting to see whether other courts are as stern as Coulson J was about the need to apply for an increase, and whether good reason may be found in a wider class of case, where there was not the specific consideration of Elvanite being under-insured.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: