Nicholas Worcester v Dr Philip Hopley

The court has a wide discretion to make costs orders after costs management. Although an ordinary costs management hearing will generally result in costs being in the case, that is not an inflexible rule. A specific order may be appropriate where a party persists with an unrealistic or disproportionate budget, particularly after a separate costs management hearing has been listed and there has been an opportunity to reconsider the parties’ positions. The court may assess the process as a whole. Approval of a sum exceeding the opponent’s offer does not by itself establish success or prevent an adverse costs order.

This was a first-instance application concerning costs following a clinical negligence claim’s Costs Management Conference. The Claimant’s estimated costs were substantially reduced after the court found that his proposed budget involved excessive partner-level work, limited delegation and disproportionate provision for counsel and other fee earners. The Defendant sought specific costs orders for the Costs Management Conference and the subsequent hearing, together with a reduction in any recoverable costs attributable to costs management. The central issue was whether the usual in the case order should be displaced and, if so, what order was appropriate.

1. The court had a wide discretion under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 44.2, as to whether costs were payable, their amount and when they should be paid. The general rule that costs follow the event did not prevent a different order where the circumstances justified it.
2. It was not appropriate routinely to depart from an in the case order merely because a party’s budget had been reduced. Critical observations made during ordinary costs management did not necessarily justify a costs penalty. However, r 44.2 was readily capable of supporting a specific order where the circumstances warranted it, including where costs management was separately listed and the parties had been given an opportunity to reconsider their positions.
3. A party who proceeded to a separate costs management hearing with an overly ambitious budget could not assume that the court’s time, the opponent’s resources and the costs of the hearing would be engaged without possible costs consequences. Approval of a sum exceeding the opponent’s offer did not conclusively establish that party as successful. The court was entitled to take a rounded view of the process and the competing significance of the parties’ outcomes.
4. The Claimant’s revised budget was unreasonable and unrealistic in terms of proportionality. The court was entitled to consider both the detailed proposals and the overall process, including the proposed level of partner involvement, limited delegation, use of two counsel and additional fee-earner input. Budgeting did not direct how work must be performed; the proposed allocation of work was relevant to whether the resulting figure was proportionate.
5. There would be no order as to the Costs Management Conference on 15 May 2024. The Claimant was to pay the Defendant’s costs of the hearing on 16 July 2024. The Claimant’s costs management costs, if recoverable, were reduced by 15 per cent.

The judgment was a first-instance determination of costs following a Costs Management Conference and a subsequent hearing. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.