A v B [2018] EWHC, 25th July (Chancery Division)



Judge: Arnold J

Citation: A v B [2018] EWHC, 25th July

Summary:

Where a successful party failed to apply for the approval of a revised cost budget, they were not prevented from establishing that there was good reason to depart from the budget, and were able to obtain an interim payment.

Longer text:

In a case where a successful Defendant had substantially exceeded its costs budget, the Defendant sought an interim payment of 90 percent of the budgeted costs and 60 percent of its un-budgeted costs.  The Claimant relied on MacInnes v Gross[1] to argue that there should be no interim payment in respect of the unbudgeted costs.  The Court held that MacInnes did not say that an interim payment should never be made, merely that the starting point was that there should not be an interim payment.  The Defendant had failed to apply for the approval of a revised budget, but this did not prevent the Defendant from establishing that there was good reason for departing from the budgeted figures.  The Defendant gave a full explanation as to why all of the items had exceeded the costs budget, but it was for a Costs Judge to go through the explanation in detail.  The Judge took the view that the Defendant was likely to establish that it had good reason to depart from its budget and interim payment on account of no more than 50 percent of the Defendant’s total costs was allowed.

[1] [2017] EWHC 127 (QB)

Date

Keywords


Sign up to our Costs Cases Newsletter


    Before submitting this form please read and agree to our Privacy Notice. Form submissions will only be held for 24 hours, after which they will be automatically deleted.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Call +44 (0)20 7832 1111 for more information

Barrister portfolio

Close

Click the + icon next to any barrister to add their profile to this portfolio.

Barrister Call CV Email