Persimmon Homes Ltd & Anor v Osborne Clark LLP & Anor [2021] EWHC 831 (Ch) (12 April 2021)

Persimmon Homes Ltd & Anor v Osborne Clark LLP & Anor [2021] EWHC 831 (Ch) (12 April 2021)

The application to vary the costs budget fails the threshold test under CPR 3.15A because the alleged significant developments (change to Model C disclosure, RFI/RRFI, further CMCs) were either anticipated or not promptly addressed. The Developers did not revise their budget or seek deferral at the relevant time, and the application was not submitted promptly. The court's jurisdiction to vary the costs budget is not engaged.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 831 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Persimmon Homes Limited; Claimant: Taylor Wimpey UK Limited; Defendant: Osborne Clark LLP; Defendant: Osborne Clark (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Costs Variation Application in Professional Negligence and Fee Claim Proceedings / Application to Vary Costs Budget
Outcome
Application to vary costs budget dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Management, Costs Budget Variation, Disclosure, Case Management
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Costs Management Costs Budget Variation Disclosure Case Management

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

Parties

Persimmon Homes Limited

Claimant

Taylor Wimpey UK Limited

Claimant

Osborne Clark LLP

Defendant

Osborne Clark (a firm)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Variation Application in Professional Negligence and Fee Claim Proceedings / Application to Vary Costs Budget

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a significant development in the litigation warranting revision of the costs budget under CPR 3.15A
  2. 2 Whether the application to vary the costs budget was submitted promptly as required by CPR 3.15A
  3. 3 Whether the change to Model C disclosure, the RFI/RRFI, and further CMCs constitute significant developments justifying variation

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the costs budget fails the threshold test under CPR 3.15A because the alleged significant developments (change to Model C disclosure, RFI/RRFI, further CMCs) were either anticipated or not promptly addressed. The Developers did not revise their budget or seek deferral at the relevant time, and the application was not submitted promptly. The court's jurisdiction to vary the costs budget is not engaged.

Court Disposition

Application to vary costs budget dismissed

Orders

  • No variation to the last approved costs budget
  • Costs to be determined in accordance with the existing budget