Decision provides guidance on the revision of costs budgets in civil litigation
Against the background of the significant changes to case and costs management in civil litigation that have been imposed by the Jackson Reforms post-1 April 2013 in certain cases, the case of Murray & another v Neil Dowlman Architecture Limited provides some early guidance on the revision of costs budgets.
Prior to implementation of the Jackson Reforms to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), the courts ran a costs pilot scheme in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC). Whilst the scheme’s governing rules have not been transposed exactly into the amended CPR, nevertheless they contain very similar costs and case management provisions to those now in force. The provisions in question in this case are analogous to new CPR 3.12 — 18 and PD 3E, which state that the court may “approve, vary or disapprove [any proposed] revisions [to costs budgets], having regard to any significant developments which have occurred since the date when the previous budget was approved or agreed”
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Walker Morris briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Walker Morris
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Walker Morris
A representor has been held liable for its negligent misrepresentation to another party other than the party that was later induced to conclude the contract.
A misrepresentation is a statement that induces entry into a contract and that turns out to be false.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The law school war shows no signs of ending. But we have, perhaps, reached the end of the beginning.
New EU rules and lawyers’ increased comfort with digital formats are sparking a sea-change in the way law firms manage their documents