Legal Cost Specialists

Flaws with new guidance for Precedent H


Latest news on new RTA portal fees and timing of extension of portal for employers’ and public liability cases over on Litigation Futures. I’m getting Jackson indigestion.


Excellent analysis from Costs Lawyer Matthew Harman on flaws with new guidance for Precedent H.

Also, why does Precedent H clearly state:

“This estimate excludes VAT (if applicable), court fees, success fees and ATE insurance premiums (if applicable), costs of detailed assessment, costs of any appeals, costs of enforcing any judgment and [complete as appropriate]”

but then have on the next four pages a row for “Court fees”?

1 thought on “Flaws with new guidance for Precedent H”

  1. Stuart Ritchie

    This is just an implementation flaw in the redesign from Precedents HA and HB, which contain (inconsistently) boxes to tick if these matters are included/excluded. In this redesigned version this is (sort of) covered off by the “complete as appropriate” phrase. So it’s not hopeless in concept, just confusing. I can live with THOSE flaws (they’ve also abolished the assumptions page for no good reason, which is a great pity because solicitors can now hide behind a minimal explanation). Much more useful is that they’ve fixed the original incomprehensible failure to include incurred and actual costs in the same document, meaning it’s now easy for judges to run an analysis such as that in para 8 of Chief Master Hurst’s judgment in Henry.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top