Latest Keoghs Insight

JR v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundations Trust [2017] EWHC 1245 (QB)

Client Alerts||30/10/2017

Fourteenth Edition of the Judicial College’s Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases

Client Alerts||15/09/2017

Personal Injury Discount Rate

Client Alerts||08/09/2017

Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017 to come into force in October 2017

Client Alerts||23/08/2017

Costs budget exaggeration is misconduct

Client Alerts||17/08/2017

Blackmore v Department for Communities and Local Government 2017 EWCA Civ 1136

Client Alerts||04/08/2017

Lord Justice Jackson's review into Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC)

Client Alerts||01/08/2017

Sentencing guidelines: Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea – update

Client Alerts||27/07/2017

Minibus claims worth over £100,000 stopped dead in their tracks as Keoghs and Mulsanne Insurance prove fundamental dishonesty

News And Events||20/11/2017

Keoghs IT team celebrate double award win

News And Events||17/11/2017

Keoghs unveils first true AI insurance lawyer

News And Events||07/11/2017

Expansion continues for Keoghs with launch of Marine, Ports and Offshore team

News And Events||03/11/2017

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

News And Events||20/10/2017

Keoghs IT team recognised in prestigious awards

News And Events||19/10/2017

Disputed causation leaves claimants paying the price

News And Events||17/10/2017

Keoghs announce 20 promotions and four new appointments

News And Events||31/08/2017

The Meaning of “Accidental Damage”

Blogs||14/11/2017

Is an approved budget the starting point for a payment on account of costs?

Blogs||08/11/2017

The Discount Rate - Time to Draw the Line?

Blogs||25/10/2017

Out of your Control: The expanding limits of vicarious liability - Natasha Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council

Blogs||23/10/2017

Keoghs Launches Online Ogden Multiplier Calculator

Blogs||09/10/2017

A new way of life? Magill v Panel Systems (DB Limited)

Blogs||27/09/2017

Driver disqualification and the case for exceptional hardship

Blogs||25/09/2017

Health and Safety Executive FFI invoices – new panel, same challenges

Blogs||21/09/2017

Credit Hire Aware 12

AWARE||19/07/2017

Costs Aware Issue 3

AWARE||22/06/2017

Property Aware 5

AWARE||14/06/2017

Credit Hire Aware 11

AWARE||21/12/2016

Fraud Aware 5

AWARE||27/10/2016

Costs Aware 2

AWARE||24/10/2016

Disease Aware 8

AWARE||05/10/2016

Credit Hire Aware 10

AWARE||18/08/2016

Keoghs Insight

We keep you up-to-date on emerging market issues and their impact on the insurance sector, through a variety of publications, events and our leading market initiatives.

Author

Howard Dean

Howard Dean

Partner

T: 0247 665 8136

Is an approved budget the starting point for a payment on account of costs?

Blogs||08/11/2017

Mr Justice Coulson found so in Bank of Ireland (Governors and Company of) & Anor v Watts Group Plc [2017] EWHC 2472 (TCC) (6 October 2017).

Paying parties need to be ready to rebut such requests and indeed the flurry of interim payment applications that this may generate.

Thankfully, there are good reasons to rebut payments on account at the level of the approved budget.

The judgment is limited to those cases where the costs incurred exceed the amount of the approved budget.

In Merrix v Heart of England NHST Foundation Trust, Carr J confirmed that where the amount of the costs of the action are lower than the amount of the approved budget then the receiving party cannot recover more than that amount upon assessment.

The indemnity principle lowers the starting point from the amount of the approved budget to that actual amount incurred.

This is again lowered if the receiving party exceeds the budgeted amount by phase – they  then should not be entitled to a payment on account that includes that excess amount, as that would be to pre determine whether there was a “good reason” to exceed the approved phase total.

On higher value complex cases there is usually an argument over hourly rates which are often reduced by more than 30%.  Deputy Master Campbell has already found that a reduction in hourly rates for incurred costs amounts to a “good reason” to depart from the budgeted costs in RNB v London Borough of Newham [2017] EWHC B15 (Costs).

Those who are getting excited about wider implications of this case need to calm down and see it for the storm in a teacup that it really is. The case merely points to a starting point in circumstances where the costs incurred exceed the amount of the approved budget.

The usual factors that are taken into account in assessing a reasonable amount for the payment on account still apply and the approach in Mars UK Limited v Teknowledge Limited [1999] 2 Costs LR remains good law!

Link to case: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2017/2472.html