Page 14 - PIC Magazine Winter Issue 14
P. 14

       The Defendant’s costs budget had
been agreed at £44,301.00 including incurred costs. The Claimant’s budget appears to have been claimed at £115,887.00. Witness statements, trial preparation and trial remained in issue, and following assessment of those phases, the budget was approved at £68,600.00.
     14     IN TOUCH
    ARTICLE
Budgeting
    The Hermetic A
Dominic Woodhouse, National Training Manager at PIC
n dealing with costs management, we are ever conscious of time pressures; budgeting the reluctant afterthought, engaged in not infrequently with suspicion and a dogged determination to get the matter over with as quickly as possible. Such appears likely to have been the case in Akheem Gray – v – Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1780 (QB) where, notwithstanding that directions appear to have been agreed, along with the Defendant’s budget and some phases of the Claimant’s, allowing for the formalities of a hearing (and lack of judicial pre-reading time), the twenty minutes occupied in costs and case management still seems remarkably quick.
Budgeting decisions are a matter of case ma
t
in the Court below was praised by Mrs Justic
e
The claim arises from alleged wrongful arrest over an incident in August 2014, the Claimant alleging that the police knew they were acting beyond their powers and that they had conspired to fabricate an account of the circumstances of the arrest. On that latter aspect
there was a stark factual dispute between the parties. Against that backdrop, the Defendant’s costs budget had been agreed at £44,301.00 including incurred costs. The Claimant’s budget appears
to have been claimed at £115,887.00. Witness statements, trial preparation and trial remained in issue, and following assessment of those phases,
the budget was approved at £68,600.00 to the conclusion of a 5-day trial.
or f
e
conducting the hearing ‘briskly and efficiently’ in a ‘relatively
t
o
t
of o
ec
ed
b
n
l
k
ho h
a
c
L
t
t
y
i
d d
g
eb e
r
f
f d
h
he
L
d
nc
e
o
JB
r
J
Ba
ch c
r
me
e
cr
c
ci e
io i
a y
e
l
t
en
re
i
ea
nt
a
is
s
i
as
o
on
si
gt g
e
l
n
s
s
e
nd
ds n
t
s m
m
a
y
y b
b
h
i
o
d
A
A
A
r
r
r
r
o
r
r
t
        C
Cr
r
r
e
e
e
p
p
p
o
o
rt
t
ts
s
s
.
.
.
      a
for appeal
n
na
an
ge
r f
a
g
e
m
em
e
n
t
t,
,
a
n
d
s
so
o
t
h
e
b
ba
a
r
        is a high one. The reasoning given in suppor
i m
r
e
l
i
m
mi
i
t
  in the context of a short hearing, quite possi
i
b
bl
l
y
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
in
n
g
t
th
h
e
l
li
i
k
ke
e
l
i
h
o
oo
   of one party or the other feeling aggrieved a
at
d
tt
th
o
ou
o
t
nd a
u
t
tc
c
o
m
me m
an
e
e,
,
a
n
d
   interrogation of the judge’s comments may w
w
e
e l
re r
u
c
l
ll
l
r
e
eq
q
u
i
r
re
i r
a
ho h
i s
i c
e
a
h
o
ol
l
i
s
st
t
i
c
  approach. With time as ever of the essence, H
H
HH
H
J
B
a
au
u
c
h
he
e
  a
a
m
m
b
be
e
er b
fo
r
rt
t
f
o
r
r
      informal and discursive hearing’.
                                                INDUSTRY EXPERTS
Partners In Costs
 
   12   13   14   15   16