I'm interested in…

  • Strategy & Procedure
  • Catastrophic Injury
  • Professional Indemnity
  • Motor
  • Fraud
  • Disease
  • Liability
  • Commercial Insurance
  • Costs
  • Local Authority
  • Scotland

Costs budgeting: Failure to comply with court rules

Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd (2013)
13 August 2013
High Court


The court's new tools in the area of costs budgeting and management are recognised as important opportunities by insurers, and rightly so. Costs budgeting applies to the vast majority of multi-track claims which insurers face. The new process gives the opportunity not only to more accurately reserve for opponents' costs, but also to ratchet down the level of costs being incurred.

Significant news came last month of this robust decision on costs budgeting which is likely to lead to early input from the Court of Appeal in this area, and which will be influential. The judgment came in the high profile libel action arising out of "Plebgate", between Andrew Mitchell MP and News Group Newspapers, the publishers of The Sun.


In this judgment, Master McCloud refused relief from sanctions to Mr Mitchell whose lawyers had not filed a costs budget in time. Under the rules, where budgeting applies, a costs budget must be filed in all cases seven days before the first case management conference. The rules also say that if a budget is not filed when it should have been, the party in default will be treated as having filed a budget comprising only of the relevant court fees.

The costs budgeting rules apply to almost all cases issued after 1 April 2013. The Mitchell case was issued before then, but was subject to the defamation costs pilot that was already running before 1 April.

The blame was taken by Mr Mitchell's solicitors. He had instructed a small two partner firm, who said that they had not had the staff available to have prepared the budget in time, and were being kept busy with the phone hacking litigation that they were also involved in.

Master McCloud accepted that the claim was important to Mr Mitchell, but did not see the point that his right to a fair trial might be lost as being decisive, as if it had been, the new post 1 April rules could not be implemented in any case that was seen as important to a litigant. In any case he could represent himself.

She went further, saying that she saw the need for justice in this specific litigation as effectively being of secondary importance to the need to ensure compliance with the rules, which would assist in turn in this piece of litigation getting its fair share of the court's limited resources, but not more than that share. It may have been significant that the Master revealed that she had vacated a half day due to be allocated to asbestos cases, to hear the application for relief in this case.


Perhaps this order was a tough one. After all, it seems that the claimant's solicitors had only two working days to have prepared their budget in time, because notice of the case management conference was relatively short. The Master did not however see that as an excuse, saying that the parties should have planned to have prepared their budgets well in advance.

Mr Justice MacDuff has now made the order to leapfrog the appeal against the Master’s decision to the Court of Appeal and Dominic Regan is reporting on his blog that the hearing will take place on 7 November. This will be an opportunity for the Court of Appeal to revisit the issue in the light of the new post 1 April climate, following the earlier warnings given in Henry v News Group Newspapers.


For further information please contact Simon Denyer,
Strategic Legal Development Partner on 0161 604 1551

This information is intended as a general discussion surrounding the topics covered and is for guidance purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. DWF is not responsible for any activity undertaken based on this information.