Source: http://tmcostings.co.uk/case-law/costs-should-not-be-regarded-as-reasonable-or-proportionate-simply-because-they-fall-within-budget/
Timestamp: 2017-05-23 20:33:45
Document Index: 627297372

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ']

TROY FOODS V MANTON [2013] EWCA CIV 615. | T M Costings Limited
TROY FOODS v MANTON [2013] EWCA CIV 615.
Costs should not be regarded as reasonable or proportionate simply because they fall within budget
The defendant appealed against a judge's costs management decision.
This was a breach of contract claim that fell under the Mercantile Court costs management pilot last year. The Claimant's budget was approved by HHJ Kaye QC in Leeds. The concern of the Defendant was that the Judge had proceeded on the basis that he would approve any figure for a particular element of the claim, provided it was not so unreasonable as to render it obviously excessive or 'grossly disproportionate'. The Court of Appeal took the opportunity to warn that Costs Judges should not treat costs as reasonable or proportionate when it comes to assessment simply because they fall within the court approved budget.
Granting permission, Moore-Bick LJ said...
"I do not accept that costs judges should or will treat the court's approval of a budget as demonstrating, without further consideration, that the costs incurred by the receiving party are reasonable or proportionate simply because they fall within the scope of the approved budget."
"Although the court will not readily interfere with the judge's decision in a matter of this kind, which essentially involves an exercise of judgment, I think it is arguable that in this case the judge did not apply the correct principles and, as a result, approved an over-generous budget in respect of some elements of costs."
The judge went on to say that he gave permission so that the Court of Appeal could establish the correct principles upon which costs budgeting is to be carried out and also possibly the proper approach to be taken by costs judges on detailed assessment where there is a budget.
In the event, it is understood, the case has now settled. We will therefore have to wait a while longer for this guidance. However, the belief amongst some that detailed assessment hearings would become largely redundant as a result of the budgeting regime appears to have been quashed. See the full Litigation Futures article.
Findcharm Ltd v Churchill Group Ltd [201... Merrix v Heart of England NHS Foundation... Bird v Acorn Group Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1... Azim v Tradewise Insurance Services Ltd ... Parker v Butler [2016] EWHC 1251 (QB) (2... Denise Jones v Spire Healthcare Ltd, Liv... Webb v Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation ... Burrell v Clifford [2016] EWHC 578 (Ch) ... SARPD Oil International Ltd v Addax Ener... Summers v Bundy [2016] EWCA Civ 126 (11 ... Broadhurst & Anor v Tan & Anor [2016] EW... Kigen and Anor, R (on the application of... (1) Capital for Enterprise Fund A LP (2)... Denise Jones v Spire Healthcare Limited ... Surrey v Barnet & Chase Farm Hospitals N... Hyde v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Founda... Coventry and others (Respondents) v Lawr... Stocker v Stocker [2015] EWHC 1634 (QB) ... IS v The Director of Legal Aid Casework ... Cashman v Mid Essex Hospital Services NH... Begum v Birmingham City Council [2015] E... Redstone Mortgages v B Legal [2015] EWHC... CIP Properties (AIPT) Ltd v Galliford Tr... Group M UK Ltd v Cabinet Office [2014] E... Lindner v Rawlins [2015] EWCA Civ 61 Ontulmus & Ors v Collett & Ors [2014] EW... Tim Yeo MP v Times Newspapers Limited [2... Astonleigh Residential v Goldfarb [2014]... British Gas Trading Ltd v Oak Cash & Car... BRETT v COLCHESTER HOSPITAL UNIVERSITY N... DURRANT v AVON & SOMERSET CONSTABULARY [... FORSTATER & ANOR v PYTHON (MONTY) PICTUR... ANDREW MITCHELL MP v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPE... SIMON DAVIES, KATHLEEN OLLIN AND CHERYL ... BENTINE v BENTINE [2013] EWHC 3098 (CH) NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES ON MERSEY... MAISURIA v LONDON BOROUGH OF EALING (UXB... ANDREW MITCHELL MP v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPE... WILLIS v MRJ RUNDELL & ASSOCIATES LTD & ... SLICK SEATINGS SYSTEMS & ANOR V ADAMS & ... ELVANITE FULL CIRCLE LTD V AMEC EARTH & ... TROY FOODS v MANTON [2013] EWCA CIV 615. MURRAY & ANOR V NEIL DOWLMAN ARCHITECTUR... FLATMAN v GERMANY; WEDDALL V BARCHESTER ... SYLVIA HENRY v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD... SYLVIA HENRY -v- NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS L... ROYALTON LIMITED v JAMES PRICHARD [2011]... SANDRA SOLOMON V CROMWELL GROUP PLC : DO... THOMPSON AND THOMPSON V BRUCE [2011] EWH... PATRICK DOGARANYA v KENNETH NWAGW [2010]... ALMAS AHMAD v (1) BRENT LONDON BOROUGH C... MAKUWATSINE V TRATHENS TRAVEL SERVICES L... KARIN LUCY HAY v (1) HENDRYK SZTERBIN (2... WILLIAM ALBERT HIGGINS v MINISTRY OF DEF... BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT BOW LANE LTD v DEAN... DAVID IAN OLIVER (EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE... JOHN THOMSON (Claimant) v BERKHAMSTED CO... LEILA MOHAMMADI v (1) SHELLPOINT TRUSTEE... PARKES v MARTIN [2009] CA (Civ Div) (1) CARL HARRIS (2) SUSAN COLLETE HARTLE... BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL v ROSE FORDE [20... (1) LIVERPOOL FREEPORT ELECTRONICS LTD (... (1) Gerald Laurence Roach (2) Jean Roach... FINESSE GROUP LTD v BRYSON PRODUCTS (A F... Subscribe to newsletter
© 2017 T M Costings Limited - Costs Lawyers, Draftsmen & Consultants. All Rights Reserved. Site by Groundnation.