Abbotsley Limited & Anor v Pheasantland Limited & Ors

The court has a broad case-management discretion in relation to costs budgeting, including power to vary or revoke an order. Consolidation of proceedings may constitute a significant development justifying reconsideration of existing costs budgets under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 3.15A. Costs management concerns the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs required for the work in each phase. It does not involve fixing or approving the hourly rates used to calculate the budget. A litigant in person may be ordered to prepare and exchange a costs budget, and the court may require such a budget where the circumstances make costs management necessary to further the overriding objective.

Two consolidated claims were being prepared for a 15-day trial. Following earlier listing failures, the trial was adjourned and relisted. The claimants sought reconsideration of their costs budgets after consolidation, including in circumstances where the second claimant acted as a litigant in person while instructing specialist counsel by direct access.

The first defendant argued that the costs issues had already been determined and were therefore res judicata. The central issue was whether the court should hold a further costs and case management hearing and revisit the existing budgets.

1. The court had power under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 3.1, including rule 3.1(7), to vary or revoke an earlier case-management order. Costs management was directed to managing the steps to be taken and costs incurred so as to further the overriding objective.
2. The obligation to file and exchange budgets generally applied to parties to multi-track claims, subject to the exceptions in rule 3.12 and the provisions concerning litigants in person in rule 3.13. Under rule 3.13(3)(a), the court could order a litigant in person to file and exchange a budget on its own initiative or on application. Rule 3.13(3)(b) made such filing mandatory where all parties consented to an application for the order. The circumstances did not establish consent by all parties, but justified exercising the court’s discretion.
3. Costs budgeting under rule 3.15 involved managing costs to be incurred and, where budgets were not agreed, recording the court’s approval after appropriate revisions. Under rule 3.15(8), the costs management order concerned the total allowed for each phase. The court did not fix or approve the hourly rates used to calculate those totals. It assessed whether the proposed costs and disbursements were reasonable and proportionate having regard to the work, complexity and value of the dispute.
4. The consolidation of the proceedings was a significant development within rule 3.15A. The existing costs budgets should therefore be reconsidered. The court might reach the same conclusions as before or different conclusions after hearing the parties.
5. A three-hour costs-budgeting hearing was listed. Updated Schedule H reports, summary costs reports and Precedent R budget discussion reports were ordered, with service by email.

This was a first-instance procedural judgment. The court recorded that an earlier judgment had granted an adjournment application, refused an application to transfer the proceedings and marked an application for recusal as totally without merit.