header-logo header-logo

Theory versus practice: 109th amendment

16 January 2020 / Kris Mohindra
Issue: 7870 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
14084
Rule change provides practitioners with more questions than answers, says Kris Mohindra
  • Key changes effected by implementation of the 109th amendment.

Since costs budgeting began in 2013, practitioners have relied upon evolving case authority and Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules for guidance and clarification of any points of ambiguity relating to costs management.

The 109th amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) came in to force as of 1 October 2019. Contained within this amendment was the new Practice Direction 3E, Para 7.4 which reads:

‘As part of the costs management process the court may not approve costs incurred up to and including the date of any costs management hearing. The court may, however, record its comments on those costs and will take those costs into account when considering the reasonableness and proportionality of all budgeted costs.’

The key change here is that incurred costs are now referred to as ‘up to and including the date of any costs management hearing’ where as the previous rules stated ‘before

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