Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

PI and Civil Litigation

Law - practice - procedure

Anthony Gold Solicitors , 09 JUN 2014

Costs Budgets - Kershaw v Roberts and another

Costs Budgets - Kershaw v Roberts and another

Costs budgets – Ian Kershaw v (1) Marion Roberts (Reserved personal representative and Beneficiary of the Estate of Jane Rosalyn Jones, Deceased) (2) James Gerard Jones (Reserved personal representative and Beneficiary of the Estate of Jane Rosalyn Jones, Deceased) sub nom In the Matter of the Estate of Jane Rosalyn Jones Deceased [2014] EWHC 1037 (Ch)

Hickinbottom J

10 April 2014

Summary

Until a claim was allocated to the multi track, the provisions of Civil Procedure Rule Part 29 would not apply to Part 8 claims.

Detail

The claimant issued Part 8 proceeding and shortly after the parties received notice of a directions hearing which was listed for 21 November 2013.

The claimant served his cost budget by fax on 14 November 2013. However, the defendant did not serve their cost budget until 19 November 2013. The defendant served their budget by post and as a consequence it was not received before the hearing.

During the telephone hearing on 21 November, the claimant’s counsel sought to argue that the hearing was in fact a Case Management Conference (CMC) and as a consequence of not filing their costs budget in time, the defendant should be limited to court fees alone.

The case was then allocated to the multi track and transferred to Rhyl County Court. During a CMC in that court, the judge held that a directions hearing was not a CMC and there was therefore no obligation to file a costs budget. As a result, the defendant could not be penalised for not filing a costs budget.

The claimant appealed and lost. The court held that the claim had not been allocated to the multi track until the telephone hearing on 21 November 2013. The judge stated “CMC’s were a creature of Part 29, and the express power to fix such a hearing was triggered by the allocation of a claim to the multi track by the court. Therefore, until a Part 8 claim was allocated to the multi track, the CMC provisions of Part 29 would not apply.”

APIL Personal Injury

APIL Personal Injury

Law, Practice and Precedents

"my preferred first port of call for any query on the law or procedure" PI Focus

Available in PI and Civil Litigation Law Online

APIL Guide to Noise Claims

An essential reference guide for claimant lawyers engaged in industrial deafness work.

More Info from £65.00
Available in PI and Civil Litigation Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters