Bloomberg LP v Sandberg (a firm) & Ors [2016] EWHC 488 (TCC) (11 March 2016)

Bloomberg LP v Sandberg (a firm) & Ors [2016] EWHC 488 (TCC) (11 March 2016)

The Claimant's costs budget is disproportionate and excessive in relation to the value and complexity of the claim. The Court must set a reasonable and proportionate budget, phase by phase, applying established principles and taking into account the guidance from relevant authorities. The approved recoverable costs for the Claimant are set at £1,162,000.00, with specific reductions in several phases, and the budgets of the Defendants are agreed.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 488 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Bloomberg LP; First Defendant: Sandberg (A Firm); Second Defendant: Sandberg LLP; Third Defendant: Buro Happold Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Malling Precast Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs and Case Management Conference (ccmc) in a Negligence And/or Breach of Warranty Claim / Costs Budgeting Prior to Trial
Outcome
Claimant's costs budget approved at £1,162,000.00 with reductions; Defendants' budgets agreed.
Legal Topics
Costs Budgeting, Proportionality of Costs, Negligence, Breach of Warranty, Limitation Defence
Civil Procedure Construction Law Costs Budgeting Proportionality of Costs Negligence Breach of Warranty Limitation Defence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bloomberg LP

Claimant

Sandberg (A Firm)

First Defendant

Sandberg LLP

Second Defendant

Buro Happold Limited

Third Defendant

Malling Precast Limited

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs and Case Management Conference (ccmc) in a Negligence And/or Breach of Warranty Claim / Costs Budgeting Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant's costs budget is reasonable and proportionate to the value and complexity of the claim
  2. 2 Whether the costs incurred and estimated by the Claimant are recoverable from the Defendants
  3. 3 Appropriate approach to costs budgeting in the Technology and Construction Court

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant's costs budget is disproportionate and excessive in relation to the value and complexity of the claim. The Court must set a reasonable and proportionate budget, phase by phase, applying established principles and taking into account the guidance from relevant authorities. The approved recoverable costs for the Claimant are set at £1,162,000.00, with specific reductions in several phases, and the budgets of the Defendants are agreed.

Court Disposition

Claimant's costs budget approved at £1,162,000.00 with reductions; Defendants' budgets agreed.

Orders

  • Claimant's recoverable costs budget set at £1,162,000.00 as per the Court's phase-by-phase assessment.
  • Budgets of the First, Second, and Third Defendants are agreed.