For all the latest news and comment in clinical negligence healthcare law
For all the latest news and comment in clinical negligence healthcare law
This collection looks at the latest news and comment on commercial contracting healthcare law. With the health and social care sector under…
For all the latest news and comment in employment and pensions healthcare law
For all the latest legal and regulatory news and comment in health technology
This collection contains DAC B eachcroft's latest report, The Route to Integrated Healthcare , which provides the first practical examples of how…
This collection looks at the latest strategic, commercial, regulatory and negligence legal and advisory news and comment in health and social care. …
For all the latest news and comment on employment and pensions law.
DAC Beachcroft Dublin specialises in insurance, professional indemnity, defendant personal injury, health, commercial litigation and employment work.…
For all the latest new and comment in tax law.
The GC Collective collection offers insight and comment for General Counsels (GCs) and in-house legal teams.
For the latest news and comment on Corporate, M&A and Equity Capital Markets.
Analysis, commentary and checklists on the legal and governance implications of Brexit on businesses operating in, and trading with, the UK
The Accountant's Liability Collection brings you topical news and insight of interest to accountants, actuaries, trustees and other financial…
Events and online training for the health and social care sector.
For the latest news and comment on banking and finance disputes.
DAC Beachcroft's LatAm Quarterly Newsletter discusses topical news and issues in Latin America
In response to client suggestions and requests, DAC Beachcroft's insurance sector flagship publication.
For all the latest legal and regulatory news and comment in health and social care integration
For all the latest news and comment in corporate regulatory healthcare law
Find advice, commentary and thought leadership on all aspects of Director's & Officer's Insurance; from contract formation through to complex…
This collection looks at the latest news, comment and development on the law affecting mental health services. The law affecting mental health…
Our market-leading Information Law team regularly publish articles and updates addressing the ever-evolving Information Law landscape.
This collection looks at our Safety, Health and Environment Team and the products and services they can provide. In the climate of increased…
The Insurance Act 2015 comes into force in August 2016 and will represent a significant change to insurance contract law in this country. This…
Legislative changes are bringing major changes to the Insurance landscape. This collection houses DAC Beachcroft's alerts on the pertinent issues.
For all the latest news and comment in clinical regulatory healthcare law
Organisations face ever-increasing expectations from Government, regulators, customers or service users, and other stakeholders, so scrutiny and…
For all the latest legal and regulatory news and comment in healthcare estates and facilities management
This collection addresses the full spectrum of cyber security and data risk management – the zeitgeist of our age.
We have acted for clients in the majority of significant product liability cases that have been decided in the UK over the last 35 years. Our product…
Considering the future landscapes of our cities
The European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force on 25 May 2016. A rewrite of European data protection law, the GDPR imposes…
Considering the future of housing
For the latest news and comment on public procurement law.
Welcome to the Construction Risks collection. This space is used to report upon issues of interest to those who seek to allocate, manage and reduce…
Technology, brands and intellectual capital are key assets for any successful business. Our intellectual property (IP) team are experts at helping…
Considering the future of retail
The Insurance Market Conditions and Trends report is DAC Beachcroft's insurance sector flagship publication. Now in its tenth year, the report…
The Solicitors' Risk Collection addresses issues and developments affecting legal practitioners, and the professional indemnity insurers of legal…
Published On: 18 October 2016
In the recent decision of Merrix v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust the Court rejected the Claimant's argument that there was no need for detailed assessment of their costs because the figures claimed were within the budget. Hannah Volpe, Partner at DAC Beachcroft LLP, explores the reasons behind that decision and its implications in practice.
This was a clinical negligence claim, dealt with by DAC Beachcroft LLP on behalf of the Defendant and the National Health Service Litigation Authority. The litigation was the subject of Cost Budgeting.
Following resolution of the claim, the Claimant, represented by Irwin Mitchell, submitted a bill of costs and sought determination of, as a preliminary issue, the question "to what extent, if at all, does the cost budgeting regime under CPR3 fetter the powers and discretion of the costs judge at a detailed assessment of costs under CPR47."
The preliminary issue came before District Judge Lumb, sitting as Regional Costs Judge in Birmingham on 13 October 2016.
Counsel for the Claimant sought to argue that Cost Budgeting and, in particular, the completion of a detailed Precedent H and attending a cost case management conference, had been intended to reduce the need for lengthy, costly and time consuming detailed assessment hearings.
He asserted that a Cost Budget fixed the amount of recoverable costs and that this could only be reduced if the paying party can show good reason to depart from it. If the costs sought were more or less in line with the budgeted figures, they should be assessed as claimed.
Counsel for the Defendant's cost draftsman Acumension, argued that the cost judge's powers were not fettered by the budgeted figure. The budget was one factor to be considered in determining reasonable and proportionate costs on assessment. However, the cost budgeting process was not intended to replace detailed assessment.
District Judge Lumb found that the Defendant must be correct in their submission that cost budgeting was not intended to replace detailed assessment. There were numerous examples to support this, not least that had that been the intention of the Rules Committee, they would have undoubtedly made wholesale changes to CPR parts 44 and 47. Instead, they included an additional factor (h) in the "pillars of wisdom" under CPR44.4(3). The receiving party's agreed or approved budget was just another factor that the court will consider, but no special weight was attached to it.
Furthermore, it was envisaged that there was always a possibility of detailed assessment. PD3E expressly states that in budgeting, a court is not carrying out a detailed assessment in advance.
What undoubtedly was intended was that effective costs and case management would greatly reduce the need for detailed assessment of some or all of the parties' costs, by ensuring that the costs budgets were within the range of reasonable and proportionate costs for each phase. In doing so, the scope for disagreement should be reduced to a level where a paying party would be unwise to risk incurring significant costs of the detailed assessment process for what would only be limited potential gains.
The District Judge went onto say that in his view, the "budget" was more of an available fund for each phase of the litigation, rather than a cap or a fixed amount. The available fund is considered to be within the reasonable range of proportionate costs, but nowhere is it stated to be a fixed assessed amount. If that had been the intention then the rules would surely state as much.
The strict answer to the preliminary issue question is that the powers and discretion of the costs judge on detailed assessment are not fettered by the costs budgeting regime, save that the budgeted figures should not be exceeded unless good reason can be shown. However, the full answer is more nuanced than the Defendant's position of "open season" and complete discretion to attack a bill on detailed assessment and the Claimant's opportunistic attempt to impose a straight jacket on the costs judge and claim a fixed figure.
The District Judge pointed out that it was the duty of the parties to help the court to further the overriding objective by narrowing the issues between them. He referred to the need for the parties to adopt an ADR like philosophy in negotiation and preparation of budget discussion reports, so that the panacea – that the difference between the parties should be so negligible that it would not be worth the time, trouble and risk to pursue a detailed assessment - can be achieved.