The report signals a major departure from what was being mooted 18 months ago and the full report can be found in full here.
Afqar Dean, Costs Lawyer and Director of Legal Costs
DeNovo | The Legal Costs Experts
Sir Cliff Richard v BBC and Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (2017) EWHC 1666 (Ch),
Judgment 13 June 2017
Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust  EWCA Civ 792
Judgment 21 June 2017
The Court of Appeal has ruled on issues of some general importance concerning the relationship between costs budgeting and detailed assessment, particularly the extent to which budgeted costs can be challenged at detailed assessment where they do not exceed the amounts allowed in the budget. However, the wait for guidance as to what might constitute “good reason” for departing from an approved budget continues.
‘Are my costs proportionate?’, ‘How much will I recover?’, ‘How much will I pay my opponent if I lose?’ All perfectly fair questions addressed to solicitors and to costs experts all the time. We should know the answers, at least in broad terms. After all, the concept of proportionate costs has been with us in one guise or another for approaching 20 years, and we are turning into a fifth year of the ‘new’ post Jackson proportionality test. Yet, like many of my colleagues, I find that the answer I give will depend as much on place and personality as it does on principle.
DeNovo - The Legal Costs Experts
Welcome to our Legal Costs Newsletter. We very much look forward to meeting with you and hope that you will consider attending our free costs seminar service which we provide in conjunction with leading costs counsel.
“Disproportionate” ATE premium slashed from £31,976.49 to £2,120. Master Simons delivers an uncompromising reminder, to solicitors’ and ATE providers alike, of how draconian the new proportionality test can be. In his judgment in Rezek-Clarke v Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust  EWHC B5 (Costs), the Master distinguished the Court of Appeal decision in Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council  EWCA Civ 1134. A summary of the judgment appears below.