Daniel Luke Woolley v Ministry of Justice

When approving a party’s costs budget, the court must consider any relevant material, including the opposing party’s budget where it may assist in assessing proportionality. Comparison is not determinative and may have little value, particularly where budgets reflect different burdens, litigation strategies or legal teams. An agreed budget is outside the court’s approval function, but it is not intrinsically irrelevant. A refusal to hear submissions based on it may amount to a serious procedural irregularity. On appeal, the relevant question under CPR 52.21(3) is whether the decision was wrong or unjust because of such an irregularity, not whether the outcome would probably have been unchanged.

The claimant appealed against a costs management order made in the Central London County Court in a personal injury claim against the Ministry of Justice. The judge approved only £26,225 of the claimant’s estimated future costs, considering the budget disproportionate, while the defendant’s agreed budget included £37,727 of estimated future costs.

The claimant argued that the judge had wrongly refused to consider the defendant’s budget and had failed to ensure that the parties were on an equal footing. The central issues were whether the defendant’s budget was a relevant consideration and whether the refusal to hear submissions caused an appealable procedural irregularity.

1. Appeal allowed. The costs management order could not stand because the judge had closed her mind to submissions comparing the claimant’s budget with the defendant’s budget.
2. Comparison between budgets is generally of limited and variable value. Different burdens of proof, legal teams, levels of seniority, tactical considerations and front-loaded claimant costs may justify different figures. Nevertheless, the opposing budget is not intrinsically irrelevant. In particular, the tasks involved in trial preparation and the trial itself may be sufficiently similar for comparison to be informative.
3. An agreed budget phase is outside the court’s approval function. The court may record the agreement and comment if it has reservations, but the agreed figure remains capable of being relevant context when considering an unagreed phase.
4. The judge’s refusal to entertain submissions based on the defendant’s budget disregarded a relevant consideration. The remarks made to counsel, including suggesting that he was unfamiliar with the rules, made the irregularity unusually serious because they undermined equal treatment and the fairness of the hearing.
5. The separate argument based on complexity and the claimant’s vulnerability failed. The judge had understood and considered those matters, and the agreed two-day trial listing constrained the time required to address them.
6. The argument that the parties had not been kept on an equal footing added nothing independently. Costs management does not require parity between budgets. The claimant’s approved overall budget was not shown to be incapable of enabling him to present his case.
7. Under CPR 52.21(3), the question was whether the decision was unjust because of the serious procedural irregularity. It was unnecessary to show that the result would probably have been different. The court was not satisfied that the result would have been the same had the submissions been heard.
8. The whole of the claimant’s costs budget was remitted to the county court for reconsideration by another judge, unless agreed. If agreement was not reached within 14 days, the matter was to be relisted.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): appeal allowed against the Central London County Court’s costs management order. The claimant’s costs budget was remitted for reconsideration by another judge unless agreed within 14 days.