header-logo header-logo

Cost budgeting: Plain sailing ahead?

06 January 2021 / Adam Grant
Issue: 7915 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail
35150
Revisions & variations: Adam Grant outlines how to adjust your approved costs budget
  • Life pre-precedent T: attempting to streamline and standardise.
  • The new regime.
  • The form: fairly self-explanatory.
  • Thoughts for the future: plain sailing?

Some of the most common questions I get asked by my clients involve when and how do they go about revising their previously approved budgets during the course of litigation. These are never easy to answer given the ambiguities surrounding such terms as ‘significant development’ or ‘good reason’ and the court’s powers to make rulings on costs for work already incurred. The Civil Procedure Rules Committee has attempted to address some of these issues by introducing a new ‘Precedent T’ as part of their 122nd update to the Civil Procedure rules which came into force in October.

Life pre-precedent T

The previous process for revising an approved budget stems from Practice Direction 3E. The parties are obliged to revise their budgets in respect of future costs (upwards or downwards) should significant development in litigation warrant

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

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

Dorsey & Whitney—Jonathan Christy

Dorsey & Whitney—Jonathan Christy

Dispute resolution team welcomes associate in London

Winckworth Sherwood—Kevin McManamon

Winckworth Sherwood—Kevin McManamon

Special education needs and mental capacity expert joins as partner

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll