Key Facts
- •Costs budgeting in a complex personal injury claim exceeding £1m.
- •Dispute over the inclusion of solicitor attendance time at case management meetings with medical professionals and deputies in the costs budget.
- •Claimant argued that such attendance is necessary to maintain the Schedule of Loss and is common practice.
- •Defendant argued that such attendance is not progressive of litigation and should be inadmissible.
- •Lack of relevant authority on the specific issue.
- •Parties engaged in ADR, resolving most budget issues except the one in question.
Legal Principles
Costs in litigation are legal costs incurred in progressing the litigation.
Judge's interpretation
Costs which are inherently non-progressive are not properly claimable in a budget.
Judge's interpretation
To be included in a budget, costs must materially progress the case.
Judge's interpretation
The Issues and Statements of Case phase in a budget includes work relating to the preparation of the Claim Form, Particulars of Claim, issue and service of proceedings, consideration of the Defendant’s statements of case, preparation of the Schedule of Loss, and conferences with counsel.
Precedent H Guidance, Practice Direction 3D
Outcomes
Solicitor attendance time at case management meetings with medical professionals and deputies is not a claimable cost in the budget.
Such attendance does not materially progress the litigation. It is not inherently progressive; information can be obtained through other means, such as letters or document disclosure. While collaboration on rehabilitation is important (Rehabilitation Code), lawyer attendance at these meetings is not a litigation cost.
£20,000 allowed for the Issues and Statements of Case phase as a whole.
This reflects the judge's disallowance of the contested costs.
If such costs were allowable, a separate phase should be added to incorporate them.
This would allow for clearer categorization and budgeting of such specific costs.