CPR 3.14 - How Explicit and Draconian? 15 August 2013 Thomas-Crockett costs, cpr, General (0) The notes in the White Book below Civil Procedure Rule 3.14 suggests the “rule is explicit and the consequences of failure to comply Draconian”. The rule itself provides that “Unless the court otherwise orders, any party which fails to file a budget despite being required to do so will be treated as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees.” It has yet to be tested by way of an appeal to the Court of Appeal (despite the author’s best efforts on several occasions). However it would appear that guidance is likely to be forthcoming soon. In an interesting twist to an interesting case, the High Court limited costs awarded to Andrew Mitchell MP in his litigation against The Sun to applicable court fees only due to his "absolute failure" to discuss budget assumptions with the newspaper and failure to ask for additional time in advance. At a case management conference in June of this year, Mitchell and The Sun were ordered to exchange costs budges as per the new CPR regime. Mr Mitchell’s lawyers however failed to do so and thus the court, in accordance with the explicit and draconian wording of CPR 3.14, held that he would thus be "limited to a budget consisting of the applicable court fees for his claim". After hearing evidence about the reasons behind the non-compliance the sanction was not lifted. Master McCloud took a strict approach and is widely reported as holding that: “Budgeting is something which all solicitors by now ought to know is intended to be integral to the process from the start, and it ought not to be especially onerous to prepare a final budget for a CMC even at relatively short notice if proper planning has been done…", and that "The court must now, as part of dealing with cases justly, ensure that cases are dealt with at proportionate cost and so as to ensure compliance with rules, orders and practice directions…" The Master noted that it would have been "far more likely" that the sanction would have been lifted against Mitchell before the reform of the CPR in this regard. However she said that in "the absence of authority on precisely how strict the courts should be and in what circumstances", and "[i]t will be for the appeal court to determine whether such a strict approach is appropriate". That appeal would be "on the basis that the severe nature of the sanction which I have imposed in giving effect to [the costs reforms] ... are of necessity not backed by specific authority on point, and the risk of injustice if I were adopting too strict an approach is such as to provide 'some other compelling reason' for an appeal to be heard”.