![](\"http:\/\/www.mondaq.com\/images\/profile\/individual\/2292946.jpg\"\/)
<\/a>\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\nA “cost budget” sets out the costs a party has
\nincurred and anticipates it will incur in court proceedings up to
\nand including trial.<\/p>\n
Save for very few exceptions (including, by way of an example,
Precedent T contains columns for recording:<\/p>\n
\n<\/ul>\n
\n<\/ul>\n Comment<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong> The new Precedent T serves to highlight
The introduction of Rule 3.15A is only likely to make it harder
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Real Estate and Construction from UK<\/p>\n Withers LLP<\/p>\n On 7 April 2021, the Construction Industry Council (\u2018CIC’) released a statement warning of construction materials shortages due to the high demand for these products both nationally and…<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\ncases in value of \u00a310 million or more), all legally
\nrepresented parties engaging in civil litigation on the multi-track
\nmust produce a cost budget before the first cost and case
\nmanagement conference (CCMC<\/strong>) unless the court
\norders otherwise. It is the court’s role to consider and, if
\nappropriate, amend and\/or approve the cost budget at the
\nCCMC.
\n\u00a0
\nOn 1 October 2020, rule 3.15A was introduced into\u00a0Part
\n3<\/strong>\u00a0of the Civil Procedure Rules
\n(CPR<\/strong>).\u00a0This changed the process for revising
\ncost budgets following the court’s approval.\u00a0 Irrespective
\nof any agreement between parties, the court’s approval of any
\nrevisions to cost budgets must now be sought using the newly
\nintroduced Precedent T form, which is now also annexed to Practice
\nDirection 3E of the CPR.<\/p>\n\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nin the case which has caused additional costs to be estimated or
\nincurred since the cost budget was approved by the court<\/li>\n\n
\nparty’s application to revise its approved cost budget<\/li>\n
\nthe importance of not only getting your budget right the first time
\nround, but treating an approved cost budget as a ‘living
\ndocument’ that is referred to, checked against, and updated
\nthroughout the life of a case (ie as costs in each phase of the
\nbudget are being incurred).\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\nfor parties to argue that costs incurred in excess of an approved
\nbudget should be recovered at the end of a case (ie where court
\npermission was not obtained) irrespective of whether or not they
\nare the successful party.
\n\u00a0
\nFor further information on the applicability of cost budgets, and
\nour views on the definition of “significant developments”
\nin a case, listen to our podcast on the subject, which can be
\naccessed\u00a0here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
\nabout your specific circumstances.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/litigation-300x225.jpg\")
<\/a>