• GL
Choose your location?
  • Global Global
  • Australia
  • France
  • Germany
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Poland
  • Qatar
  • Spain
  • UAE
  • UK

Jackson in action

24 January 2018
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/revising budget: In Sharp & Ors v Blank & Ors (2017) the High Court was asked to approve a revised budget in accordance with Practice Direction 3E.7.6. on the basis that there had been "significant developments" since the defendant had filed their last budget, in that, amongst other factors, the time estimate for the trial had almost doubled, the claimant had given further disclosure and served a further expert's report. Agreeing to the application to revise the budget in part, Chief Master Marsh held that there would be occasions where a court would be asked to revise a budget, where costs that had been estimated, were incurred costs by the time that the court came to look at the revised budget. 21.12.17

Test for proportionality/detailed assessment: In May & Anor v Wavell Group & Anor (2017) HHJ Dight CBE, sitting with Master Whelan reviewed on appeal the way in which Master Rowley had applied the new proportionality test under CPR r.44.3 at a detailed assessment. Master Rowley had originally reduced the Claimants' costs from over £200,000 to £35,000 plus VAT. Held, the Master had misinterpreted and misapplied the new test. He undervalued the sums in dispute between the parties, had too little regard to the complexities of the litigation and reduced the costs disproportionally because the parties reached an early settlement. Carrying out a fresh assessment, the Claimants' costs were assessed at £75,000 plus VAT. 22/12/17

Provisional assessment/costs cap: In W Portsmouth & Co v Lowin (2017), the Court of Appeal were asked to consider whether the costs cap that applied to the provisional assessment process under CPR r.47.15, applied in those cases where the costs were being assessed on an indemnity basis. The Court of Appeal concluded that the cap was just that and it did not prevent an assessment of the costs taking place on an indemnity basis. The cap did not represent fixed recoverable costs, as an assessment of the claimed costs could take place and on the indemnity basis. There was no tension between the cap and assessing costs on an indemnity basis. 19/12/17

Relief from sanctions/admitting authenticity of documents: In McGann v Bisping (2017), the Defendant had failed under CPR r.32.19 to give notice to the claimant that he did not admit the authenticity of certain documents served in support of the claimant's claim. Notwithstanding that fact, the defendant had served a defence and witness statements which made it clear that the claimant would be required to prove the authenticity of the documents in question and the parties had prepared for trial on the basis that that was the case. However, shortly before trial the claimant argued that the defendant had waived his right to challenge the authenticity of the documents as he had failed to give notice under CPR r.32.19. Allowing relief from sanctions, Richard Salter QC held that the defendant's failure to give notice was neither serious nor significant and arose out of ignorance of the rule. To allow the point would not be in the spirit of the overriding objective. 15.12.17

Further Reading

We use cookies to give you the best user experience on our website. Please let us know if you accept our use of cookies.

Manage cookies

Your Privacy

When you visit any web site, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. We mainly use this information to ensure the site works as you expect it to, and to learn how we can improve the experience in the future. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalised web experience.
Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change permissions. However, blocking some types of cookies may prevent certain site functionality from working as expected

Functional cookies

(Required)

These cookies let you use the website and are required for the website to function as expected.

These cookies are required

Tracking cookies

Anonymous cookies that help us understand the performance of our website and how we can improve the website experience for our users. Some of these may be set by third parties we trust, such as Google Analytics.

They may also be used to personalise your experience on our website by remembering your preferences and settings.

Marketing cookies

These cookies are used to improve and personalise your experience with our brands. We may use these cookies to show adverts for our products, or measure the performance of our adverts.