Jackson in Action: case law
In our regular monthly round up of cases we look at the effects of the changes to the Civil Procedure Rules under the Jackson Reforms:
Costs budgeting/departing from budget at detailed assessment: In Merrix v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (2017) the court considered what approach it should take to a detailed assessment in a case that settled before trial, where the court had approved the claimant's budget. Held, Carr J that a costs judge should not depart from the budgeted costs figure unless there was a good reason to do so, irrespective of whether the sums claimed at detailed assessment were more than the sums budgeted for, less than the budgeted sum, or the same amount. 24/2/17
Costs management orders/establishing extent of potential liabilities: In Sharp v Blank & Ors (2017) the court agreed to make a costs management order in a case where the claimant had purchased after the event insurance but wanted to establish the extent to which the defendant's costs went above the ceiling of their cover. Held by Nugee J, that the claimant's request for a costs management order in the case would be granted, as the need for certainty in the litigation outweighed the costs of making a costs management order and was a proportionate step to take. 21/1/17
Relief from sanctions/failure to file defence in time: In Dhanji & Anor v Al-Najar & Ors (2017) the defendants' application for relief from sanctions was granted by Master Matthews, sitting in the Chancery Division. Despite the defendants committing a serious and significant breach of the CPR by failing to file their defence on time, for which they did not have a good explanation, is was appropriate to retrospectively extend the time for service of the defence. Evaluating the circumstances of the case and whether to grant relief, the inconvenience and the difficulties caused by the failure to comply could be compensated for in costs. 18/1/17
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.