The Claimant social worker had brought libel proceedings against The Sun newspaper after it published articles concerning her involvement in the cases of Victoria Climbié and Baby P. The proceedings were settled and the Claimant was entitled to recover her costs on the standard basis. Both parties had exceeded their budgets. The Claimant's solicitors had gone over by almost £300,000, largely as a result of witness statements and disclosure.
Master Hurst had to decide whether there was a "good reason" to depart from the Claimant's budget. He found that there was not...
" It is clear that the Claimant did not keep either the Defendant or the Court informed of the fact that its budget was being exceeded... The fact that both sides exceeded their budgets does not assist the Claimant... The provisions of the Practice Direction are in mandatory terms... Whilst ... I have no doubt that the Claimant could make out a very good case on detailed assessment for the costs being claimed, the fact is that the Claimant has largely ignored the provisions of the Practice Direction and I therefore reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no good reason to depart from the budget. "
In overturning this decision Lord Justice Moore-Bick said...
"[Budgets] are intended to provide a form of control rather than a licence to conduct litigation in an unnecessarily expensive way. Equally, however, it may turn out for one reason or another that the proper conduct of the proceedings is more expensive than originally expected."
He did however go on to point out that the the rules coming into force on 1 April 2013 differ "in some important respects" to those of the defamation costs management pilot, under which Henry v NGN was conducted...
"In particular they impose greater responsibility on the court for the management of the costs of proceedings and greater responsibility on the parties for keeping budgets under review as the proceedings progress. Read as a whole they lay greater emphasis on the importance of the approved or agreed budget as providing a prima facie limit on the amount of recoverable costs... although the court will still have the power to depart [from it] if it is satisfied that there is good reason to do so."
The Court found that the Senior Costs Judge had taken too narrow a view as to what amounted to "good reason" to depart from the Claimant's budget.
Our occasional e-Newsletters are a concise, useful and convenient source of information relevant to our clients.
"Tom Winyard is very experienced and knowledgeable in this minefield of costing. He is a very effective communicator and handheld me every step of the way in my dealings with the most aggressive unethical opposing counsel. When the world caved in on me, it was Tom who step-by-step and patiently built the picture to protect his client. After hiring 4 law firms, waste of money and time and did not even achieve anything close to what Tom can offer. It would certainly be detrimental too to any suffering party not to hire Tom Winyard because I have certainly called almost 40 costs firms in London and had no joy with them. Thank you Tom, we will be forever indebted. We are grateful and we thank God for enabling us to find Tom to salvage the most painful event."Linda Chin - Singapore