Various Claimants v MGN Ltd
The determination of figures in the costs budgeting exercise shall not include any sum for additional liabilities (uplift and ATE insurance premiums), as mandated by Precedent H and Practice Direction 3E, and due to the practical impossibility of assessing such sums without disclosure obligations at the budgeting stage.
- Parties
- Claimant: Various Claimants; Defendant: MGN Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 25 July 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Costs Management / Costs Management Hearing (pre Trial)
- Outcome
- Application by claimants allowed; additional liabilities excluded from costs budgeting.
- Legal Topics
- Costs Budgeting, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa), Additional Liabilities, ATE Insurance Premiums, Proportionality in Costs
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Various Claimants
Claimant
MGN Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Costs Management / Costs Management Hearing (pre Trial)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether additional liabilities (uplift and ATE insurance premiums) should be included in costs budgeting under CPR and Practice Direction 3E in CFA cases
Ratio Decidendi
The determination of figures in the costs budgeting exercise shall not include any sum for additional liabilities (uplift and ATE insurance premiums), as mandated by Precedent H and Practice Direction 3E, and due to the practical impossibility of assessing such sums without disclosure obligations at the budgeting stage.
Court Disposition
Application by claimants allowed; additional liabilities excluded from costs budgeting.
Orders
- Costs budgets to exclude any sum for additional liabilities (uplift and ATE insurance premiums).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment