Is a formal application to amend a costs budget always necessary and wise? Masudur Rahman v Dewan Hassan and Others [2024] EWHC 2038 (Ch) - Andrew Ratomski, Temple Garden Chambers
22/08/24. Date of judgment: 1 August 2024
HHJ Paul Matthews sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge considered a number of consequential matters following a three week trial where the underlying proceedings concerned whether a number of transactions made by the late Mr Al Mahmood, who the claimant maintained was his relative, were gifts in contemplation of death. After judgment was handed down, the successful claimant sought to apply formally to amend his costs budget (see paras. 42 to 53) and the application and factors relied on give a helpful indication of both the necessity of such applications to amend costs budgets and how a range of factors will be handled by the court when adjudicating on what is a “significant development” in litigation.
The Application
The claimant made an application under rule 3.15A to vary his originally approved costs budget. The judge observed in accordance with the rules that either significant developments will warrant a revision or they do not. The revising party must then serve particulars of the variation proposed and submit them promptly to the court. The court will approve, vary or disallow proposed variations or may list a further costs management hearing.
The budget approved on 23 August 2023 was in the sum of £320,648.50 excluding VAT. The claimant sought an increase of £134,931.55 excluding VAT (i.e. close to 40%) and relied on...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/Remmzo
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
