The preparation of costs budgets (Precedent H), budget discussion reports (Precedent R), claims for budget adjustments (Precedent T), and advocacy. Whether you require a regular budget drafting service, a one-off costs budget for high value commercial litigation, or assistance in opposing a budget, we would be delighted to discuss our competitive terms and our services.
Form Precedent H (Annex A, Practice Direction 3D – Costs Management), conventionally referred to as a ‘costs budget’, sets out details of a party’s incurred and estimated litigation costs. Costs budgets are required for the purposes of costs management pursuant to CPR 3. The costs budgeting process allows the case management judge to set a limit on future recoverable costs.
With limited exceptions, Precedent H is required in all Part 7 multi-track cases with a monetary value below £10M, and in higher value cases where directed by the court.
A Precedent H includes a high-level phase by phase summary of all costs and disbursements incurred on the case to date. In most cases the Precedent H should be completed, filed and served no later than 21 days ahead of the first case management conference (‘CMC’); thus the account of incurred costs normally runs to a few weeks before the CMC. The Precedent H also includes estimates of future costs – normally running up to and including trial – again broken-down phase by phase. There are ten standard phases (Pre-action, Issues/statements of case, CMC, Disclosure, Witness statements, Expert reports, Pre trial review, Trial preparation, Trial, and ADR/settlement).
CPR 3.14 provides that ‘[u]nless the court otherwise orders, any party which fails to file a budget despite being required to do so will be treated as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees.’
Costs budget negotiations normally take place between the parties following the exchange of budgets and ahead of the first CMC. Following exchange of Precedent Hs, the parties prepare budget discussion reports (costs Precedent R) which set out figures which are agreed for each phase, figures which are not agreed for each phase; and a brief summary of the grounds of dispute. Budget discussion reports are normally to be filed no later than seven days before the CMC. It is not unusual for parties to agree each other’s budget in part or in full.
Incurred costs can only be assessed at the conclusion of the case, at detailed assessment. A Judge dealing with the costs budgeting will not assess either parties’ incurred costs, although he or she may comment on them and any observations will be taken into account at any subsequent detailed assessment.
We have a highly skilled team of costs lawyers and costs draftsmen, who draft budgets in cases of all kinds, both moderate and high value. We are a specialist legal costs consultancy. We work hard to maintain and to live up to our reputation as one of the UK’s top providers of legal costs related services. All of our costs lawyers and consultants are highly experienced. We spurn the ‘one size fits all’ approach, characteristic of many costs consultancies; as a result we provide clients – many of whom continue to instruct us after 20 years - with the certainty that their cases will be handled by the most appropriate, competent and experienced legal costs experts.
Education/admissions
Afqar is involved in the firm's diversity initiatives and a keen advocate for social mobility and opportunities for all.
Afqar was amongst the first in our profession become a regulated Costs Lawyer. He enjoys rights of audience in relation all costs proceedings.
Afqar is also an accredited training provider.
Experience and notable cases
Kuwait Airways Corporation (KAC) –v- Iraqi Airways Company (IAC) – Following the longest running commercial case in the history of the English courts I prepared KAC’s massive costs claim, one the largest ever to reach the doors of the Senior Courts Costs Office. Legal costs claim of >£40M.
Pharma patent litigation – I was instructed by a leading global law firm on behalf of the successful parties in patent infringement and revocation proceedings involving some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies. Legal costs claim of >£5M.
Telecoms patent litigation – I was instructed by a top tier specialist firm of patent litigators to prepare various complex costs statements following trials and appeals involving some of the world’s largest technology corporations. Legal costs claim of >£10M.
High-profile costs claim following failed £100M civil recovery proceedings – instructed by a market leading international litigation team acting for a foreign citizen whose worldwide assets were subject of a civil recovery claim brought by the National Crime Agency (NCA). My team and I prepared a number of high value interrelated claims for costs on behalf of the successful party . Legal costs claim of >£5M.
Excalibur Ventures v Texas Keystone – The case generated several decisions of wider importance in the legal costs field (relating to security for costs, indemnity costs, and the availability of a non-party costs order against professional funders – a point on which the Association of Litigation Funders also intervened). I prepared the successful party's costs breakdowns and provided witness statements in support of its security for costs applications. Following the conclusion of the substantive litigation I prepared the defendant’s £20M> costs breakdown.
Challenge to remuneration and expenses of joint administrators – instructed by a market leading international litigation team: I was instructed to prepare a detailed challenge to the charges of a global financial consultancy and their advisers (including two high-profile international law firms), in connection with the administration of a UK energy supplier. The application for assessment of fees and expenses of >£5M under the Insolvency Act 1986 was the first significant challenge of its kind in 20 years.
Education
LLB (Hons) – University of London (1994)
LLM (Distinction) – University of East Anglia (2018)
PhD (law) - University of East Anglia (2024)
Professional and research interests: Costs law and practice, litigation funding, responsibility theory, vicarious liability, products liability, litigation practice, philosophical foundations of tort law. My doctoral thesis examined relationships between (pre-moral, pre-legal) outcome responsibility and strict tortious obligations of repair. Time permitting, future research output will address aspects of costs law and practice, third party litigation funding, as well as approaches to responsibility for harm caused by intelligent products (for ‘algorithmic accidents’).
