The claimant’s approved cost budget was in the sum of £320,648.50. The application sought an increase in the sum of £134,931.55.

In support the claimant advanced the following developments as reasons for departing from his original budget:

(1) He was involved in a road accident after the close of evidence and before closing submissions in the trial.
(2) The claimant's particulars of claim were amended during the trial resulting in additional costs being incurred.
(3) The defendants made post trial written submissions, at the direction of the Judge, incurring additional costs.
(4) There was an interval of some 5 1/2 months between the end of the closing submissions of the circulation of the draft judgment, and additional costs were incurred by the claimant once that draft judgment was circulated.
(5) Work on the judgment in the period 29 May 2024 to 14 June 2024 resulted in additional costs being incurred by the claimant.

The defendants opposed the application arguing that:

(1) There was no formal application.
(2) No evidence had been served.
(3) The budget originally approved was for representation of the claimant at trial by solicitors and counsel. In the event, the claimant was represented by counsel alone.
(4) There were no significant developments sufficient to justify an increase in the original cost budget (approved three months before trial) by approximately 40%.
(5) The accident was not a significant development in the litigation. It did not lengthen the trial, and, although it may have led to a decision that written closing submission should be supplied, such written submissions would have been contemplated as a possibility at the time of the original budget.
(6) The application to amend the particulars of claim failed and the facts and matters relied on in support did not arise after the approval of the costs budget, and could not therefore be a development in the litigation.
(7) The defendants’ further submissions were caused by the claimant's amendment of his claim during his closing submissions. There was no need for the claimant to respond to the defendants' submissions and this was not a significant development.
(8) The need for counsel to refresh his memory of the case by reason of a lapse of time between reservation of judgment and circulation of a draft arises often, and cannot be said to be a significant development in the litigation.
(9) The consequential matters hearing would have been in the contemplation of the parties at the time that the costs budgets were approved and were foreseeable. 

 Expressing concern about the lack of evidence and the extent of the extra costs being sought; the judge accepted that all of the five reasons could be regarded as ‘developments’ in the litigation, but some of them were matters which arise frequently in litigation, and can properly be regarded as within the contemplation of the parties at the time that costs budgets are being formulated. Dismissing the application, he stated:

‘More importantly, I do not regard any of these five matters as a "significant" development in the litigation which should justify a variation of the budget. The use of the word "significant" in the rule is deliberate. It is not every development that requires variation in the budget. Otherwise large amounts of pre-trial preparation time would be taken up with making applications for budget variations. Accordingly, I dismiss the application for a variation of the costs budget.

Afqar Dean, Denovo

Link to Judgment:  Rahman v Hassan & Ors (Re Consequential Matters) [2024] EWHC 2038 (Ch) (01 August 2024) (bailii.org)

Categories:  #costsbudgeting, #CPR3.15A, #significantdevelopments