header-logo header-logo

High Court makes important decision on proportionality

10 October 2013
Issue: 7579 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Coulson J declines “unreasonable” costs budgets in professional negligence claim 

The High Court has declined to accept “unreasonable” costs budgets on both sides of a £1.6m professional negligence claim, in an important decision on proportionality.

In Willis v MRJ Rundell [2013] EWHC 2923 (TCC), a claim against a firm of construction professionals, both sides submitted their costs budgets in December 2012—£821,000 for the claimants, and £616,000 for the defendants. Mr Justice Coulson expressed concern that the figures were high.

The case went to mediation and the trial was adjourned. Coulson J then ordered a case management hearing solely on costs management, by which time the combined budgets exceeded £1.6m.

Coulson J declined to approve the budgets, stating: “It seems to me that one test of proportionality is whether the trial is likely to be an end in itself, or merely a lesser part of the process, which the parties will use in order to put themselves in the strongest position to argue that, subsequently, the other side should pay all or most of their costs. 

“When the costs on each side are much higher than the amount claimed/recovered, the latter is almost inevitable. I have no doubt that that will be the case here. For those reasons, therefore, I conclude that the costs shown in the costs budgets are disproportionate and unreasonable.”

Coulson J was critical of some of the items on the claimant’s budget, which were “said to be both incurred and estimated, without it being clear which is which, and without any breakdown of either”. 

The allowance for experts’ fees were put at £100,000 “before any account is taken of their involvement at the trial…I would have expected to see a figure something like half the amount actually included in the costs budget,” he said. “Unhappily, my recent experience is that the amount of the experts’ fees in cases like this is often out of all proportion to the assistance provided.”

However, practitioners will be relieved by Coulson J’s comments that the absence of an approved budget do not necessarily mean no costs are recoverable.

Issue: 7579 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll