PI Brief Update

Managing the costs of costs management brought into sharp focus - Andrew Ratomski, Temple Garden Chambers

20/09/24. Case: Peter Jenkins v Thurrock Council [2024] EWHC 2248 (KB)

Date of judgment: 9 September 2024

Managing the costs of costs management is brought into sharp focus by the recent decision of Master Thornett in Peter Jenkins v Thurrock Council [2024] EWHC 2248 (KB). The Claimant was seeking damages arising from a significant right foot and ankle injury suffered whilst at work as a refuse collector and for alleged consequential psychological sequalae. The Claim Form certified that damages would exceed £200,000. Liability was admitted and the Provisional Schedule of Loss was said to be typical of higher value claims and costs managed outside of the High Court’s jurisdiction. At a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) a five-day quantum trial was listed for the first-half of 2026 with a Costs Management Hearing (“CMH”) to follow.

The issue

At the CMH on 17 July 2024 the claimant’s budget was considerably reduced and at the conclusion of the hearing, the defendant sought that an order other than costs in the case should be made.

Background

The claimant had maintained at the CMC that another CCMC should be listed and then a trial with a full budget for all issues totalling almost £1.2 million in contrast to the defendant’s position of a budget to trial of £380,000. Strikingly the Claimant’s incurred costs were said to be £356,000. The court recognised that straightforward comparisons are often difficult in personal injury cases. By the CMH, the claimant’s updated budget was revised to a little under £950,000. The parties were agreed that they would be unable to present any agreement as to costs at the CMC and so the CMH was said to be inevitable (although the court was unimpressed by such suggestions).

At the CMH the court concluded that the claimant was maintaining an unrealistic and inappropriately ambitious budget, and preferred the defendant’s submissions on proportionality and what a reasonable range was. The claimant’s figures proposed for Trial Preparation, Trial and ADR phases were all criticised. Costs were reserved by the CMH judge having had regard to the “significant percentage reductions” to the claimant’s budget.

Key principles

At para. 2 Master Thornett observed that the issues were similar to the recent...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/lenscap67

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...