Various Claimants v McAlpine & Ors [2015] EWHC 3543 (QB) (04 December 2015)

Various Claimants v McAlpine & Ors [2015] EWHC 3543 (QB) (04 December 2015)

The court held that, given the complexity, value, and public importance of the group litigation, the proposed costs as a whole were disproportionate. Applying the Lownds two-stage approach, the court scrutinised each phase of the budgets post-2 October 2015, approving only those costs deemed necessary, reasonable, and proportionate. Unchallenged costs were treated as agreed for the purposes of the costs management exercise, but the court retained discretion to depart from agreed figures if they were disproportionate or unreasonable.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3543 (QB)
Parties
Claimants: Various Claimants; Defendants: Sir Robert McAlpine and others; Third Parties: Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation Order (costs Management) / Costs Management Hearing Post Budget Exchange
Outcome
Costs management order made approving and revising costs budgets as set out in the annexed schedule.
Legal Topics
Costs Management, Group Litigation, Proportionality of Costs, Costs Budgeting, Detailed Assessment
Civil Procedure Costs Costs Management Group Litigation Proportionality of Costs Costs Budgeting Detailed Assessment

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Various Claimants

Claimants

Sir Robert McAlpine and others

Defendants

Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd and others

Third Parties

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation Order (costs Management) / Costs Management Hearing Post Budget Exchange

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed costs budgets are reasonable and proportionate under CPR and Practice Direction 3E
  2. 2 Whether unchallenged costs are to be treated as agreed for the purposes of CPR 3.15(2)(a)
  3. 3 Application of the Lownds two-stage approach to proportionality in group litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, given the complexity, value, and public importance of the group litigation, the proposed costs as a whole were disproportionate. Applying the Lownds two-stage approach, the court scrutinised each phase of the budgets post-2 October 2015, approving only those costs deemed necessary, reasonable, and proportionate. Unchallenged costs were treated as agreed for the purposes of the costs management exercise, but the court retained discretion to depart from agreed figures if they were disproportionate or unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Costs management order made approving and revising costs budgets as set out in the annexed schedule.

Orders

  • Costs budgets for each party and phase approved or revised as per the attached schedule.
  • Unchallenged costs treated as agreed for the purposes of the costs management exercise, subject to detailed assessment.