header-logo header-logo

Green light for revising budgets up

02 January 2019
Issue: 7822 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Bar for what constitutes a significant development should not be set too high

Claimants can revise budgets upwards if more disclosure than expected is needed, representing a ‘significant development’, a High Court master has held.

Ruling in Ohoud Al-Najar (a protected party) v the Cumberland Hotel [2018] EWHC 3532 (QB), Master Davison agreed a 78% budget increase of £49,185 to £111,811 after the expected 20 to 30 lever arch files of documents turned out to be 55 lever arch files. He outlined five broad principles, including that whether a development is ‘significant’ is a question of fact; if what occurred should reasonably have been anticipated it will probably not be ‘significant’ or a ‘development’; and the development can occur in the normal course of litigation.

‘As a matter of policy, it seems to me that the bar for what constitutes a significant development should not be set too high because, otherwise, parties preparing a budget would always err on the side of caution by making overgenerous (to them) assessments of what was to be anticipated,’ he said.

The case concerned a shocking incident where a violent criminal gained access to the rooms where nine members of an extended family were sleeping and attacked three sisters with a claw hammer, causing serious facial and head injuries. Liability was complex.

City University’s Professor Dominic Regan (pictured), NLJ columnist, said: ‘This is a rare and overdue steer as to when a budget can properly be varied.

‘We are more than five years on from implementation and yet practitioners stumble around as if blindfolded.’

Francis Kendall, vicechairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL), said: ‘The ACL’s surveys over the five years since costs budgeting came into force have consistently shown that solicitors are not making enough applications to revise their budgets, when we all know in practice how often they are blown off course by events that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time they were set. Failing to revise a budget in such circumstances is just storing up problems for the later assessment of costs.

‘We urge solicitors to learn from this case and keep in mind the need to update their budgets when the situation demands it.’

Issue: 7822 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll