All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
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  EWHC 1037 (Ch)
10 April 2014
Until a claim was allocated to the multi track, the provisions of Civil Procedure Rule Part 29 would not apply to Part 8 claims.
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.”
"my preferred first port of call for any query on the law or procedure" PI Focus