Proportionality was always going to be a problem, says Dominic Regan
Mitchell was unquestionably the harshest procedural decision of the century. Well it was until now. In BNM V MGN [2016] EWHC B13 the senior costs judge found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was obliged to apply the new, inchoate proportionality test to a bill of costs.
Having carefully worked through the component parts of the bill he arrived at a figure that represented the necessary, reasonable expenditure incurred by the claimant to whom we will return later.
However, matters did not end there. He concluded his decision by rolling out the proportionality test which is both enshrined in the costs rules and the overriding objective. The latter at the Jackson revised CPR 1.1 requires the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
Applying some innate skill he then proceeded to slash the entire bill by 50%, although allowing court fees in full.
Proportionality
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
