A second Conservative MP has fallen foul of new case management rules brought about by the Jackson reforms.
Solicitors for South Suffolk MP Tim Yeo (pictured) had filed a budget for almost £560,000 for his libel case against Times Newspapers.
But following a costs management conference last month in the High Court, Mr Justice Warby reduced Yeo's approved budget to £370,000 after citing several areas where the amounts claimed were too high.
Case management, including costs budgeting and tough sanctions for breaches of deadlines, was a key element of the Jackson reforms that came into force in April 2013.
Yeo’s Conservative colleague Andrew Mitchell has already felt the effects of the new regime, after his solicitors were denied the opportunity to recover costs because of a failure to file a budget in time.
Yeo’s case surrounds articles in the Sunday Times published in June 2013 about his alleged role in lobbying activities. Warby has already ruled against an application by Times Newspapers for trial by jury. Yeo is represented by Carter-Ruck Solicitors.
Warby said he considered Yeo’s solicitors’ hourly rates to be ‘too high by 20-25%’, and in some instances ‘excessive’ partner time had been provided for. The estimated trial-preparation cost for the claimant was £217,000, but this was slashed to £56,000 by the judge.
He also reduced the estimated disclosure costs and cut witness statements costs from around £45,000 to £26,000.
Warby also removed around £50,000 claimed for contingencies – named as a ‘strategy review and consultation’ and ‘possible further work’.
‘The time and costs involved in estimating how much work would cost are not easily justified if the work is no more than a possibility or is unlikely,’ he added. ‘If work identified as a contingency is included in a budget but not considered probable by the court no budget for it should be approved.’
The defence’s costs were reduced from around £416,000 to around £347,000, the majority of the savings coming from removing three contingency costs.
Each side has incurred more than £200,000 in total in pre-action costs, statements of case and the first case management conference.
Warby said these were not subject to the approval process, but that if substantial costs had been incurred this would be taken into account when considering the reasonableness of all subsequent costs.
4 Readers' comments