Defendants
Defendants
We have limited the disputed Lead and ALGLO budgets to £500,000 as being a sum within the 20% tolerance discussed earlier and in circumstances where the estimates were considerably higher than seemingly comparable ALGLO budgets for similar work.
Vauxhall’s budget was considerably in excess of all other Non-ALGLOs, save for Volvo which had accepted an offer of 60% of their estimate. The need for two counsel and three fee earners in this phase did not appear reasonable given Vauxhall’s limited involvement as a Non-ALGLO in the CMC. The claimants’ offer was approved.
- Heading
- Mrs Justice Cockerill DBE and Senior Costs Judge Rowley
- Background
- Lessons learned from the first CMH
- Stress testing “over lawyering”
- The comparison with Tranche 2
- Standard figures or a range of reasonable and proportionate costs?
- Claimants’ budgets generally: Lead Firms & Others
- Defendants’ budgets generally: Amount of costs actually being incurred
- CMCs and PTR
- Co-ordination
- Defendants
- Section 13
- Defendants
- Selecting Sample Claimants
- Defendants
- Individual Statements of Case
- Defendants
- Disclosure
- Defendants
- Witness statements
- Defendants
- Defendants
- Quantum Trial Preparation
- Defendants
- Quantum Trial
- Defendants
- Second General Phases – GLO Management Costs
- Second General Phases: Fortnightly Meetings
- The non-budgeted phases: Expert Reports and ADR / Settlement
- Conclusions
![[2025] EWHC 2307 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png)