In Right Support Management Ltd v London Borough of Hillingdon [2025] EWHC 680 (KB) The High Court (Mr Justice Ritchie) allowed an appeal against a county court decision refusing relief from sanctions for late filing of a costs budget.

Background

The Claimant filed its costs budget 2 years and 4 months late, citing confusion over deadlines and procedural distractions (e.g., a strike-out application and capacity issues involving a vulnerable party, DB). The Judge at first instance found the breach serious and significant (Denton stage 1) and the explanation not a good reason (stage 2). At stage 3, he refused relief, emphasising the lack of promptness in applying (4 months after realising the error).

Appeal

Ritchie J held the judge erred by:

  • Failing to consider that the breach had no impact on litigation progress (no CCMC occurred, no trial date was jeopardised).
  • Over-relying on British Gas v Oak and Diriye v Bojaj (which both involved unless orders and imminent trials, unlike this case).
  • Ignoring mitigating factors (e.g., the Defendant’s own late relief application, the absence of prejudice, and the overriding objective).

Outcome

Relief was granted but with a 20% reduction in recoverable costs as a sanction. The decision emphasises the fact that the approach to granting relief from sanctions remains a balancing exercise, requiring consideration of the breach’s seriousness, its reasons, and all relevant circumstances, including litigation efficiency, prejudice, and the party’s promptness in rectifying the error (Denton).

In Right Support Management Ltd v London Borough of Hillingdon [2025] EWHC 680 (KB) The High Court (Mr Justice Ritchie) allowed an appeal against a county court decision refusing relief from sanctions for late filing of a costs budget.

Background

The Claimant filed its costs budget 2 years and 4 months late, citing confusion over deadlines and procedural distractions (e.g., a strike-out application and capacity issues involving a vulnerable party, DB). The Judge at first instance found the breach serious and significant (Denton stage 1) and the explanation not a good reason (stage 2). At stage 3, he refused relief, emphasising the lack of promptness in applying (4 months after realising the error).

Appeal

Ritchie J held the judge erred by:

  • Failing to consider that the breach had no impact on litigation progress (no CCMC occurred, no trial date was jeopardised).
  • Over-relying on British Gas v Oak and Diriye v Bojaj (which both involved unless orders and imminent trials, unlike this case).
  • Ignoring mitigating factors (e.g., the Defendant’s own late relief application, the absence of prejudice, and the overriding objective).

Outcome

Relief was granted but with a 20% reduction in recoverable costs as a sanction. The decision emphasises the fact that the approach to granting relief from sanctions remains a balancing exercise, requiring consideration of the breach’s seriousness, its reasons, and all relevant circumstances, including litigation efficiency, prejudice, and the party’s promptness in rectifying the error (Denton).