England and Wales Case Law

South Tees Development Corporation & Anor v PD Teesport Limited

The defendant, as the successful party on the appeal, is entitled to its costs of the appeal and the adjournment application, to be assessed on the standard basis. The costs of the appeal are not required to be included in the costs budget, and it was reasonable for the costs of the adjournment application not to have been included. A payment on account of £45,000 is appropriate.

Source excerpt

• Costs management
• Costs budgets
• Appeals
• Adjournment applications

Read case analysis

BDW Trading Ltd v Lantoom Ltd

BDW Trading Ltd v Lantoom Ltd [2020] EWHC 2744 (TCC) (16 October 2020)

The court partially granted both parties' requests to revise costs budgets after a major increase in disclosure documents affected witness and expert work.

• Costs management
• Costs budgets
• Significant development
• Disclosure
• Expert evidence
• Witness statements

Read case analysis

Freeborn & Anor v Marcal (t/a Dan Marcal Architects)

Freeborn & Anor v Marcal (t/a Dan Marcal Architects) [2017] EWHC 3046 (TCC) (28 November 2017)

The court held that a TCC office letter varied the costs-budget timetable, so no relief from sanctions was needed. Alternatively, relief would have been granted.

• Relief from sanctions
• Costs budgets
• Case management
• Compliance with civil procedure rules
• Relief-from-sanctions
• Costs-budgeting

Read case analysis

Freeborn & Anor v Marcal (t/a Dan Marcal Architects)

The court held the defendant properly relied on a court office letter fixing the costs budget deadline. Relief from sanctions was unnecessary, and costs were awarded against the claimants.

• Relief from sanctions
• Costs budgets
• Case management
• Civil procedure rules (cpr) compliance
• Relief-from-sanctions
• Costs-budgets

Read case analysis

Simpson v MGN Ltd & Anor

The High Court awarded the claimant £10,500 in costs after a preliminary issue and related applications, reducing the sum for budget and service failures.

• Costs management
• Summary assessment of costs
• Costs budgets
• Practice direction compliance
• Costs-management
• Summary-assessment-of-costs

Read case analysis

CIP Properties (AIPT) Ltd v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd & Ors

CIP Properties (AIPT) Ltd v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 3546 (TCC) (29 October 2014)

The TCC refused a pre-disclosure ADR window and held it had discretion to order costs budgets in a large construction case, with no need for separate budgets for every party.

• Alternative dispute resolution (adr)
• Case management
• Costs budgets
• Civil procedure rules (cpr)
• Multi-party litigation
• Alternative-dispute-resolution

Read case analysis

CIP Properties (AIPT) Ltd v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd & Ors

The court refused a pre-disclosure ADR window and held it had discretion to order costs budgets in a large TCC case, with that discretion unfettered by the monetary threshold.

• Adr (alternative dispute resolution)
• Case management
• Costs budgets
• Multi-party litigation
• Case-management
• Adr

Read case analysis

Kershaw v Roberts & Anor

Kershaw v Roberts & Anor [2014] EWHC 1037 (Ch) (10 April 2014)

The High Court held that an initial directions hearing in a Part 8 claim was not necessarily a case management conference, so costs budgeting was not triggered.

• Costs management
• Case management conferences
• Inheritance (provision for family and dependents) act 1975
• Civil procedure rules part 8
• Costs budgets
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Willis v MRJ Rundell & Associates Ltd & Anor

The TCC declined to approve either party’s costs budget, finding both budgets disproportionate and unreasonable, and refused to make a costs management order.

• Costs management
• Proportionality of costs
• Practice direction 51g
• Costs budgets
• Costs-management
• Proportionality-of-costs

Read case analysis

Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd (Rev 1)

Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd (Rev 1) [2012] EWHC 90218 (Costs) (16 May 2012)

The court refused to depart from an approved defamation costs budget, holding that the claimant’s failure to update and liaise on costs defeated reliance on good reason.

• Costs management
• Defamation proceedings
• Practice direction 51d
• Costs budgets
• Departure from approved budget
• Defamation

Read case analysis