Defendants
Defendants
Whilst all parties were confident that the 40 sample cases would involve 40 statements from the claimants, there was much more uncertainty in respect of the defendants’ witnesses. The claimants appeared dubious that the defendants would have any relevant witnesses to call. The defendants thought that they would probably call evidence but it depended on the claimants’ evidence as to how many witnesses and from whom the evidence might be obtained. Therefore, the budgets were particularly speculative in this phase and a broad brush was required.
We think there is less merit in distinguishing between those defendants who are faced with five Sample Claimants and those who have ten than in some of the other phases. Much of the work will relate to the defendants’ own evidence, and that of the other defendants. As such, the difference in the number of claimants is only one factor.
It has to be said that none of the defendants appear to expect to produce more than three or four witness statements themselves. Even allowing for the evidence to include some comments upon the expert evidence, the figures claimed seem particularly high. Unusually this includes Ford, who suggested that its figures were higher because it was expecting their Sample Claimants to include large fleet claims. Whilst this does not entirely explain the figure of £707,854 for ostensibly three witness statements and consideration of the claimants’ statements and those of other defendants, we recognise that fleet claimants are likely to raise discrete issues which will increase the work involved. We have allowed Ford £400,000 compared with the £350,000 allowed for the other ALGLO defendants (save for Nissan Authorised Dealerships where we have allowed the £20,000 offered by the claimants).
There is less scope for the budgets of the Non-ALGLO defendants to be speculative since their work is no more than to consider the witness statements produced by others. This may account for the range of the ten defendants being between £35,720 and £62,531.16 with almost all being between £40,000 and £50,000. Six defendants have accepted the claimants’ offer of £35,000. For the remainder, we consider a 20% increase on this sum to £42,000 allows a reasonable and proportionate sum under this phase.
PTR
Claimants
As discussed above, the Pan NOx budget for this phase is allowed at £300,000.
- 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)