Witness statements
Witness statements
Claimants
This phase was budgeted, as discussed at the hearing, on the basis of there being 40 Sample Claimants. The alignment of witness statements as described in the claimants’ budget assumptions ought to be limited as discussed above. The defendants’ offer of £50,000 for the Lead and ALGLO budget was preferred for this work.
In respect of the GLO specific budgets, once the non-lead work was removed from the Mercedes budget, the figures were all but the same. They included £43,750 in each budget for Oliver Lawson of Milberg to provide “advice on technical matters, consider and provide strategic guidance on the approach to witness statements and review drafts”. Given the number of other solicitors and barristers instructed by the claimants in these proceedings, we cannot conceive how such advice could reasonably be incurred between the parties and have disallowed it as a result.
- 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)