![[2025] EWHC 2307 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png){kind=logo}
Stress testing “over lawyering”
Stress testing “over lawyering”
As well as looking to comparisons with Tranche 2 (see below), there are phases of the Tranche 3 budgets which have sufficiently defined parameters to enable us to stress test the budgets for “over lawyering”. We conclude that the court’s criticism of “over lawyering” in the first CMH judgment has not prevented the claimants here claiming the following attendances at the CMCs, PTR and trial as being reasonable:
CMCs: in person and remote attendance sought for 32 fee earners throughout: 5,585 hours with a cost of £3.3 million across 2 CMCs.
PTR: nearly £1.5 million was claimed for the PTR (against £450,000 allowed for the longer PTR in the PDD trial).
Trial: 9 attendees in person, including 2 partners for each of the two lead firms, each charging 10 hour days, complemented by the remote attendance of a further 6 partners, 6 Grade B fee earners, 6 Grade C and 3 Grade D – all on 8 hour days.
- 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