PI Brief Update

In costs budgeting, comparison of the parties' respective budgets is a relevant consideration - Nancy Kelehar, Temple Garden Chambers

20/03/24. Woolley v Ministry of Justice [2024] EWCA 304 (KB)

Date of Judgment: 16/02/2024

The CCMC

Costs budgets in a claim valued up to £80,000 were prepared in May 2023. The claimant’s budget totalling £121,886 was based on a 5-day trial, whereas the defendant’s budget totalling £58,984 was based on a 2-day trial. The CCMC was listed for 2 June 2023. Prior to the CCMC, the claimant agreed to the defendant’s budget whilst noting their ‘reservations that your budget is pitched tactically and unrealistically low’.

At the CCMC, HHJ Baucher decided that the trial should be listed for two days. There was no appeal on the basis of that decision being incorrect. After discussion of the phases, the court concluded that the claimant’s budget appeared disproportionate and ultimately restricted the claimant to estimated costs of £26,225. The defendant’s estimated costs had been agreed in the sum of £37,727, i.e. over 40% more.

Grounds of Appeal

In appealing the determination of HHJ Baucher on the claimant’s budget, the claimant advanced two grounds of appeal before Mr Justice Kerr: (1) that the judge refused to have regard to the defendant’s agreed budget which was a relevant consideration; and (2) the judge failed to consider and ensure that the parties are on an equal footing amounting to an error of law.

The claimant submitted that the judge had wrongly...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/picha

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...