Peter Jenkins v Thurrock Council
[2024] EWHC 2248 (KB)
PXT v (A Child by her Mother and Litigation Friend, AXD)
6 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1372 (KB)
High Court
A child was seriously hurt in a car accident. The case could cost over £2 million. Even though cases like this usually aren't managed carefully to control costs, the judge ordered strict cost controls because the lawyer's bills were already incredibly high and still rising quickly. The judge wants to avoid incredibly high legal fees.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (child) suffered severe brain injury in a car accident (85/15 liability in Claimant's favor).
- •Claim value potentially exceeds £10 million.
- •Significant costs incurred and estimated (£850,000 incurred, £262,000 estimated to next CMC).
- •Defendant applied for costs budgeting, Claimant opposed.
- •Prognosis uncertain, full assessment not expected until 2026.
- •Significant concerns raised by Defendant regarding cost accuracy and proportionality.
Legal Principles
CPR 3.12(1): Costs management applies to most Part 7 multi-track cases, except for claims over £10 million or claims by children under 18 (unless court orders otherwise).
CPR 3.12(1)
CPR 3.12(1A) and 3.13(3): Court has discretion to order costs budgeting even in cases where it wouldn't automatically apply, considering the overriding objective.
CPR 3.12(1A) and 3.13(3)
Overriding objective requires just and proportionate cost management, saving expense where practicable.
CPR overriding objective
In high-value claims, the court exercises discretion regarding costs budgeting, weighing all circumstances. No presumption against ordering costs budgets in claims over £10 million.
CIP Properties v Galliford Try [2015] EWHC 3546 (TCC)
Costs budgeting should aim to save expense and enable just case management; otherwise it's a waste of money.
Sharp v Blank [2017] EWHC 141 (Ch)
Sound policy reasons exist to exempt children's claims from automatic costs management due to lengthy timelines and prognosis uncertainty.
CXS v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 14(KB), Law Society Gazette (6 August 2022)
Hourly rates are not determined in costs budgeting, but reasonable rates should be considered.
Yirenkyi v Ministry of Defence [2018] EWHC 3102 (QB)
Costs associated with rehabilitation, such as attending MDT meetings, may be claimable, but excessive time spent on such activities is concerning.
Hadley v Przybylo [2024] EWCA Civ
QOCS protection may apply in detailed assessment, potentially impacting the defendant's ability to recover costs.
The Scout Association v Bolt Burdon Kemp [2023] EWHC 2575, Challis v Bradpiece [2024] EWHC 1124 (SCCO), Ho v Adelekun [2021] 1 WLR 5132, Cartwright v Venduct Engineering [2018] 1 WLR 6137, Harrison v University Hospitals of Derby [2023] 4 WLR 8
Outcomes
Ordered costs budgeting for the claim.
Despite the claimant being a child and the uncertainty surrounding the prognosis, the court found that the potential for excessive and disproportionate costs, coupled with the high level of costs already incurred, justified ordering costs budgeting sooner than initially planned. The court considered the substantial costs already incurred (£850,000) and the possibility of these costs doubling or more to be a compelling reason.