Rudan Business Holding SA v Tridan Trusted Advisors AG & Ors

Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, a costs budget may be varied only where there has been a significant development in the litigation and the proposed variation has been submitted promptly. The development must represent a change in the litigation since the last approved budget, rather than an avoidable miscalculation, overspend, increased hourly rates or a change in legal-team resourcing. Promptness is assessed contextually, but parties must revise budgets as significant developments occur. Delaying revisions until costs have been incurred defeats the prospective function of costs management. Where both thresholds are met, the court will ordinarily revise the budget, subject to its discretion as to amount, proportionality and the overriding objective.

The petitioner brought an unfair-prejudice petition under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 concerning the affairs of Leo Services Holding Limited. The proceedings involved disputed allegations concerning management, directors’ removal, transfers of subsidiary shares and the value of the relevant companies.

The parties’ original costs budgets were approved in 2022. Following amendments to the statements of case, extensive disclosure, foreign-law issues, applications under the Hague Convention and changes to the anticipated trial, both parties sought substantial variations to their budgets. The central issue was whether the proposed increases or reductions arose from significant developments and had been submitted promptly.

1. Threshold requirements. Rule 3.15A of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 imposes two threshold requirements: a significant development must have occurred which warrants revision, and the proposed variation must have been submitted promptly to the other parties and the court.
2. Significant development. A development is assessed in the context of the litigation as a whole, including its size, complexity, manner of progress and likely additional expenditure. It must involve a change to the status quo after approval of the budget. An avoidable budgeting error, an overspend, increased solicitors’ rates or a redistribution of work between lawyers is not ordinarily a significant development.
3. Application to the phases. The non-consequential amendments to the Defence and Reply, the resulting expansion of issues and disclosure, and the increased length of the trial were significant developments. The additional costs of the Further CCMC listed for 6 and 7 May 2025 were also significant. The adjourned CCMC, the application hearing on 2 February 2023, increased rates, internal resourcing changes, ordinary security-for-costs and disclosure applications, and unissued specific-disclosure work were not significant developments.
4. Promptness. Parties must revise their budgets when the significant development becomes sufficiently identifiable. Cooperation or an anticipated later costs hearing may affect what is prompt, but does not excuse waiting until costs have been substantially or fully incurred. The proposed revisions for statements of case, disclosure and witness statements were too late. The revisions for the Further CCMC, trial preparation and trial were submitted promptly.
5. Disposition. The applications were allowed in principle only for the Further CCMC, trial preparation and trial phases. Increases in those areas were permitted, with the amounts to be determined or agreed. The remaining proposed variations were disallowed.