I'm interested in…

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

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:

Detailed assessment/costs management orders: In Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust (2017) the Court of Appeal considered whether to allow the claimant to depart from figures set at a costs budgeting hearing. The costs budgeting process would have primacy over detailed assessment, except in respect of incurred costs. Where a costs budget had been set for estimated costs, then a party would only be allowed to depart from the figure set if there was a good reason for doing so. In respect of incurred costs, the court would be entitled to look at those at detailed assessment without there being a good reason. 21/6/17 Access the judgment on BAILII

Court fees only budgets/revised budgets: In Asgar & Anor v Bhatti & Anor (2017), the court permitted the claimant to revise a budget, where CPR r.3.14 had previously applied and the claimant had been limited to a court fees only budget. The claimant had previously attempted to seek relief from sanctions from that decision, which had been refused. Sitting in the Queen's Bench Division, Lewis J upheld the Master's decision to allow a revised budget where the defendant was to incur costs that were not previously anticipated in the case. Whilst it had been expected the trial would last six days it subsequently transpired that the estimate would need to be 12 days. The change in the trial time estimate was a significant development that meant the claimant could revise their costs budget. 24/5/17 (Extempore judgment)

Relief from sanctions regime/failure to serve defence in time: In Redbourn Group Ltd v Fairgate Development Ltd (2017), Coulson J sitting in the Queen's Bench Division, refused an application to set judgment aside. Although the application to set aside had been made promptly, there was no good reason why the the defence and counterclaim had not been served in time and why it took the defendant until over four months to provide a draft defence and counterclaim. Whilst the defendant had a good defence to the claim and the defendant failed to meet the test in CPR r.13.3 (1), CPR r.3.9 and the test in Denton also applied to applications to set judgment aside and the defendant had failed to meet the relevant test. The defendant's failure in allowing the claimant to enter judgment was serious and there was no good reason for the failure. 19/5/17 Access the judgment on BAILII

For further information please contact Marcus Davies, Professional Support Executive, on 0161 603 5146

Share your views

Please complete your details below to share your views. All comments are moderated and only your name and comment will be visible.

Your Comment

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.

Top