A High Court judge has ruled that charges for meetings with case managers are not claimable because they do not progress the court case.

Claimant lawyers in Hadley v Przybylo had included the costs of weekly meetings with a case manager and two deputies in their court budget for a complex personal injury claim.

But Master McCloud accepted the defendant’s argument that these costs were not incurred in the progression of litigation, ruling that costs which are inherently non-progressive were not properly claimable in a budget between the parties.

She said: ‘Having a fee earner attending rehabilitation case management meetings is not progressive in the above sense and does not fall within the notion of "costs".

‘Likewise a fee earner attending on deputies so as to seek input into the ongoing drafting of the case in the form of the schedule, when deputies do not properly play a part in such work, is not progressive.’

McCloud said the argument that attending on case managers and deputies was an integral part of producing the schedule of loss – and hence allowed in the budget – was ‘weak’. She suggested that information about case management could be ‘achieved by the occasional letter to the case manager or relevant deputy’ or from obtaining documents for later disclosure, in the disclosure phase.

The total claimed by the claimants for future costs in the budget was £68,400 (258 hours). Some 60% was for the case manager and 20% each for attendance meetings with deputies. All this was framed as being part of the maintenance of the schedule of loss.

The claimant’s lawyers said it was frequently the case that such charges were allowed to be included in court budgets and that was the practice of other masters. They contended that attendance by a fee earner at these case management meetings were reasonably necessary to progress the litigation because they assist in maintaining the schedule of loss as the claim goes along.

McCloud allowed future costs of £20,000 for the issues and statements of case phase. She added that no current phase of budgeting was appropriate for these items and it may be useful for an appellate court or the rules committee to look at this issue.

Because of the importance of the decision she gave leave to the claimant to appeal, and heard argument as to any ‘leapfrog’ in view of the impact it might have more widely.

The case was also notable for McCloud ordering the parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution to resolve issues in the budget.

She added: ‘By the time the matter returned to me some time later, the parties had indeed engaged in ADR using qualified costs lawyers and all but one matter had been agreed on the budget, which I think speaks for itself in terms of saving time and money.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.