will consider whether the budgeted costs fall within the range of reasonable and proportionate costs. 7.4 As part of the costs management process the court may not approve costs incurred before the date of any budget. The court may, however, record its comments on those costs and will take those costs into account when considering the reasonableness and proportionality of all subsequent costs. 7.5 The court may set a timetable or give other directions for future reviews of budgets. 51. Note again, the injunction to revise budgets: this just doesn’t seem to be happening with the frequency that logically it should: 7.6 Each party shall revise its budget in respect of future costs upwards or downwards, if significant developments in the litigation warrant such revisions. Such amended budgets shall be submitted to the other parties for agreement. In default of agreement, the amended budgets shall be submitted to the court, together with a note of (a) the changes made and the reasons for those changes and (b) the objections of any other party. The court may approve, vary or disapprove the revisions, having regard to any significant developments which have occurred since the date when the previous budget was approved or agreed. 7.7 After its budget has been approved or agreed, each party shall re-file and re-serve the budget in the form approved or agreed with re-cast figures, annexed to the order approving it or recording its agreement. 7.8 A litigant in person, even though not required to prepare a budget, shall nevertheless be provided with a copy of the budget of any other party. 7.9 If interim applications are made which, reasonably, were not included in a budget, then the costs of such interim applications shall be treated as additional to the approved budgets. 52. The vexed issue of hourly rates, has now been removed conclusively from the arena of budgeting: which is conceptually odd, and a pity as
will consider whether the budgeted costs fall within the range of reasonable and proportionate costs. 7.4 As part of the costs management process the court may not approve costs incurred before the date of any budget. The court may, however, record its comments on those costs and will take those costs into account when considering the reasonableness and proportionality of all subsequent costs. 7.5 The court may set a timetable or give other directions for future reviews of budgets. 51. Note again, the injunction to revise budgets: this just doesn’t seem to be happening with the frequency that logically it should: 7.6 Each party shall revise its budget in respect of future costs upwards or downwards, if significant developments in the litigation warrant such revisions. Such amended budgets shall be submitted to the other parties for agreement. In default of agreement, the amended budgets shall be submitted to the court, together with a note of (a) the changes made and the reasons for those changes and (b) the objections of any other party. The court may approve, vary or disapprove the revisions, having regard to any significant developments which have occurred since the date when the previous budget was approved or agreed. 7.7 After its budget has been approved or agreed, each party shall re-file and re-serve the budget in the form approved or agreed with re-cast figures, annexed to the order approving it or recording its agreement. 7.8 A litigant in person, even though not required to prepare a budget, shall nevertheless be provided with a copy of the budget of any other party. 7.9 If interim applications are made which, reasonably, were not included in a budget, then the costs of such interim applications shall be treated as additional to the approved budgets. 52. The vexed issue of hourly rates, has now been removed conclusively from the arena of budgeting: which is conceptually odd, and a pity as
2016-04-17-Costs-Budgeting-the-Pride-and-the-Passion.docx