A clinical negligence claimant who saw their unrealistic costs budget slashed cannot claim for the costs of sorting out the argument, a court has ruled.

The claimant’s initial estimate of £342,000 was pared down to around £160,000 following a costs management conference, prompting the defendant to demand that the claimant be denied any costs incurred at that hearing.

Ruling in Worcester v Hopley, Master Thornett said the disproportionality of the claimant’s budget and subsequent reduction could not be ‘excused away’. 

'Parties must be prepared to account for not just what work justifies their estimated costs but why the figure claimed is also proportionate,’ said Thornett. ‘The claimant’s [budget] was unreasonable and unrealistic in terms of proportionality. It led to a polarised approach between the parties on budgeting that had prevented settlement and so necessitated a separate hearing.’

The claimant, represented by London firm Stewarts, had urged the court not to penalise them for trying to offer a competing view of costs. Taking this approach, it was argued, would invite satellite litigation, extend the time and expense of the litigation and stifle reasonable argument about the proposed expenditure.

Thornett agreed that if a court took a critical view of costs then that should not necessarily lead to a costs penalty. But equally, he said, any party coming to a separately listed costs management hearing with an overly ambitious budget should not ‘readily assume’ there will be no consequences.

The judge said there had been ‘little if any’ structured delegation, with 30 hours of partner time claimed for witness statements already being prepared by paralegals and counsel. While the defendant’s budget had been agreed in advance of the hearing, the claimants’ approach required a ‘significant and fundamental deconstruction’.

He made no order for costs for the costs budgeting hearing and added that the claimant ‘ought to see this as a benefit’.