The High Court has confirmed that judges do not have a general discretion to vary approved costs budgets unless there has been a significant development in the litigation. The ruling provides important guidance on how courts will approach costs management in civil proceedings.
The decision was made in Bassey v Whittaker & Watford Insurance Company, where Mr Justice Cavanagh allowed an appeal against a district judge’s decision to approve changes to the parties’ costs budgets.
The court ruled that additional work by medical experts, a modest extension to the trial timetable, and further disclosure were not significant developments because they were reasonably foreseeable when the original budgets were prepared.
Mr Justice Cavanagh explained that costs budgeting is intended to be a broad-brush exercise and should not be subject to constant revisions whenever expected changes arise during litigation. Only developments that could not reasonably have been anticipated will justify varying an approved costs budget.
The judgment reinforces the importance of preparing realistic litigation budgets from the outset and confirms that foreseeable changes alone are insufficient to reopen court-approved costs estimates.
