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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll