Defendants
Defendants
For the reasons discussed above regarding the weight of the PTR compared with the Tranche 2 PTR, we have reduced some of the otherwise agreed figures regarding the Lead and ALGLO defendants so that the ceiling is £275,000. The Nissan Authorised Dealership figure we have allowed as claimed. Adding it to the other Nissan claim still allows for a figure considerably below the other ALGLOs without any compelling reason for the further reduction sought by the claimants.
In respect of the Non-ALGLO defendants, we have allowed the sums offered by the claimants in relation to Vauxhall and FCA. The Vauxhall budget suggested far too much involvement from a Non-ALGLO defendant to be reasonable. The FCA budget, whilst lower than Vauxhall, was still too high where the assumption was that no skeleton would be produced nor any submissions made.
- 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)