Legal Costs Specialists – Gibbs Wyatt Stone

New Precedent Q

CPR 47.6 is amended from 1 October 2015 such that the documents to be served when commencing detailed assessment will now include:

“if a costs management order has been made, a breakdown of the costs claimed for each phase of the proceedings”

(The new Model Precedent Q can be found on this link showing the format of the breakdown.)

The fact the requirement to serve the breakdown only arises when a costs management order has been made is, perhaps, odd. I wonder if the rule committee overlooked PD 44 para.3.4:

“On an assessment of the costs of a party, the court … may have regard to any other budget previously filed by that party, or by any other party in the same proceedings. Such other budgets may be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness and proportionality of any costs claimed.”

Given the accuracy of budgets is meant to be considered by phase, there equally seems to be a need for a breakdown whenever a budget has been served, regardless of whether a costs management order has been made.

Posted

in

by

Simon Gibbs

Tags:

Comments

2 responses to “New Precedent Q”

  1. Northern Monkey avatar
    Northern Monkey

    That’s a really shoddy document (Precedent Q). It’s in the wrong order from Precedent H for a start. Also, the description of CMC is “interlocutory hearings” and the description given of PTR is “Case and Costs Management Hearings”- should be CMC, obviously. Who puts these things together- a numpty? And who checks them prior to release? A bigger numpty?

    Reply
  2. avatar
    Anonymous

    A budget not subject to a CMO, is only an estimate – that is why PD 44 3.4 says “may”; whereas the revised CPR 47.6 says “must” because a CMO has taken place and the figures approved already (in principle)

    I agree it would be desirable to have such a breakdown where a budget has been done; regrettably, there is no “Need” as expressed in Simon’s view, and no way of compelling such to be provided (save you go down the Application route citing Stables v City of York, which is not binding) – given many Claimant firms I come across still cant get the same figures twice where they budget then bill, I suspect we are unlikely to see much i the way of voluntary breakdowns

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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