Nicholas Worcester v Dr Philip Hopley
[2024] EWHC 2181 (KB)
Peter Jenkins v Thurrock Council
9 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2248 (KB)
High Court
A personal injury case had a hugely expensive plan for legal costs. The judge thought the plan was too much, even after it was made smaller. Because the person who made the plan didn’t try to make it more reasonable, they had to pay the other side’s legal costs for the hearing about the costs. The judge also reduced the injured person's legal costs by 35%.
Key Facts
- •Costs Management Hearing in a personal injury claim (Mr Peter Jenkins v Thurrock Council).
- •Claimant's initial budget was significantly reduced due to being deemed unrealistic and ambitious.
- •Claimant's initial budget was £1,195,754.26, reduced to £944,537.16, then further reduced by the court.
- •Defendant's budget was £383,417.20.
- •Liability was admitted by the Defendant in March 2021.
- •The case involved a significant foot and ankle injury sustained at work, with alleged psychological consequences.
- •The court considered the proportionality of the Claimant's budget in relation to the complexity of the case.
- •Multiple budget revisions were submitted by the Claimant.
- •The court found the Claimant's approach to costs was unrealistic and disproportionate despite opportunities for negotiation.
- •The Claimant's incurred costs were £358,762.51.
Legal Principles
Merely reducing a budget in a costs management hearing doesn't automatically warrant a costs penalty against the party who submitted it, unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Worcester v Hopley [2024] EWHC 2181 (KB)
The court can consider factors in r.44.2 (CPR) when assessing the costs of a budgeting exercise, including success and conduct.
CPR r.44.2
Parties are not immune from costs considerations during costs management hearings.
Implicit in the judgment
The court should take a rounded overview of the costs of the budgeting exercise, applying its experience in the context of the specific case.
Implicit in the judgment
Outcomes
The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant's costs of the Costs Management Hearing.
The Claimant maintained an unrealistic and disproportionate approach to costs despite opportunities to modify their position. The hearing could have been avoided with a more reasonable approach. The Claimant's incurred costs were deemed high, and the Disclosure phase was described as significantly disproportionate.
The Claimant's recoverable costs were reduced by 35%.
To reflect the inappropriate and unrealistic approach adopted in preparing several budgets.