What is a Costs and Case Management Conference (CCMC)?

A Costs and Case Management Conference (CCMC), which takes place early on in Litigation, aims to outline a progression route and review associated costs for a case pre-trial. Here, the court orders case management, such as setting deadlines for evidence and disclosure of documents, and cost management such as revising budgets and legal costs.

The CCMC is vital to ensure efficiency and organisation are prioritised concerning the proportionality of costs involved. Should parties fail to reach an agreement, the court will assess costs budgets, considering reasonability relative to the complexity and nature of the dispute.

The court will not attempt to determine the feasibility of pre-CCMC costs but may comment to set a tone for the future conduct of parties in later cost assessments. The Case of GS Woodland Court GP 1 Limited & Anor v RGCM Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 285 (TCC) is reflective of key disputes which appear within cost and case management in regard to the justification and proportionality of recoverable costs budgets.

GS Woodland Court GP 1 Limited & Anor v RGCM Limited & Ors: “On the wrong side of the line”

In the recent case of GS Woodland Court GP 1 Limited & Anor v RGCM Limited & Ors, Mr. Justice Constable ordered costs against claimants after he reduced their proposed budget by half. He emphasised that pursuing an “overly ambitious budget” could lead to cost consequences.

In this particular CCMC, the Judge criticised the enhanced grade A rates charged by the Claimants’ solicitor’s, Jones Day, which were nearly double the guideline hourly rate without proper justification. The case, GS Woodland Court GP 1 Limited & Anor v RGCM Limited & Ors, involved allegations of defects at a student accommodation block, with seven defendants, though only the first, the construction manager, faced all allegations, and one defendant was insolvent.

Mr. Justice Constable noted that the case was typical of expert-driven defect cases and did not require complex or excessive legal involvement. It was furthermore argued that each Defendant will have had similar responsibilities, including sourcing their own experts and participating in their own disclosure exercises, providing reason for similar costs between Defendants. The same cannot be said for the Claimants who faced a more straightforward cost process. He explained that the Claimants’ costs appeared disproportionate, given that the total amount claimed by the claimants was close to the combined cost of all of the defendants.

Scrutinisation arose that the Claimants’ rates, such as £1,089 for grade A, far exceeded the guideline rate of £566, with similar discrepancies in other grades. Despite the Claimants’ primary argument that the Defendants had also charged above guideline rates, the Judge found no justification for the high rates. He indicated that substantial reductions would be made in the overall costs, suggesting that “if one substitutes the guideline rates for those that are claimed, it takes about £1.4 million off the overall budget.”

The Court’s Decision

In terms of total costs, the budgeting exercise provided that the Claimants’ estimated costs were £4.2 million, while they had initially claimed £8.7 million. The Defendants offered between £2.7 million and £3.5 million, which led the judge to conclude that a total sum of £4.212 million in incurred and estimated costs was “reasonable and proportionate” for the case’s complexity. The scale of reduction from the budget proposed during the initial stages of the costs management process makes it readily obvious that “the Claimants’ Precedent H was unrealistic both in terms of reasonableness and proportionality.”

The high court judge approved the approach taken by Master Thornett previously in Worcester and Jenkins, ruling that a party submitting an overly ambitious budget could face costs consequences. He also clarified that the mere reduction in the budget did not necessarily mean the opposing party succeeded, “it is not necessary to ascribe the word “success” or “loss” to that,” but if it were the claimant’s significant reduction indicated a loss in that their proposed budget was unrealistic.

It was concluded that four of the Defendants could recover their reasonable costs for attending the costs management hearing, but the other two Defendants were not entitled to any costs, nor would they be liable for the Claimants’ costs. The Claimants would bear their own due to the implausibility of the claimed hourly fees.

Ultimately, the judge summarised the events of the case-by-case assessment by stating there were “a number of features… that suggest that the Claimants’ position is clearly on the wrong side of the line.” This case highlights the importance of submitting realistic and proportional budgets, as failure to do so can result in significant costs consequences.

CCMC: Key takeaways from the High Court Judge’s decision

At a glance, the ruling of a negotiated recoverable sum of £4.2 million, less than half of the suggested £8.74 million by the claimants, suggests that although the guidelines are a “starting point” for legal professionals to determine their service charge, firms and solicitors such as Jones Day should not aim to recover implausible fees which do not reflect the nature of their work. Moreover, parallels between the fees of the defending party’s fees and those of the claimants should not be used as justification for such excessive claimant fees.

Additionally, there is something to be said about the argument in which Jones Day made suggesting the £8.74 million bill was supported by the extent of responsibilities and quality of work expected whilst doing heavy commercial work, to which the judge argued was pre-acknowledged and should have been expected by the Claimants with the instruction of Grade A fee earners.

In cases such as GS Woodland Court Ltd v RGCM Ltd, the GHR for a Grade A (8+ years of experience, National Band 2 to London Band 1) of £282–£566 is a baseline structure for firms to consult. If the Claimant’s fees are in excess of the provided rate, they must be justifiable with the presentation of well-thought-out evidence. If not, paying parties and the court have the jurisdiction to challenge the claiming party in a costs management hearing.

Upon consideration, the court may allow enhancements on the grounds of complexity and value, although these rates will oftentimes be disputed by paying parties and the court, which is where issues arise.

However, strangely enough, in the aforementioned matter, the £1,089 rates were not initially challenged by the Paying Party and the court deemed it appropriate to interject. Here, the judge found that there was “no justification” for the enhancement. The judge emphasised that courts should take a more proactive approach in determining whether a party’s conduct has unnecessarily incited increased costs and judicial resource use.

How can Greener Costs Assist you with CCMC?

Our experienced team of Costs Lawyers and Costs Draftsmen can assist and advocate for disputes within the CCMC process. We can assist in drafting reflective costs budgets, considering all factors, such as case complexity and solicitor experience, to ensure fair negotiations.

We help clients from all backgrounds, whether a paying or receiving party, and can support you throughout your dispute, including alternative dispute resolution and when needed, representation at detailed assessment hearings and High Court cases. We understand the urgency and complexity of cases and offer timely advice and services.

Greener Costs is the UK’s first net positive legal costs company, committed to helping law firms with cost services while promoting carbon neutrality. Our operations are fully paperless, and we plant 25 trees per instruction.

To speak with a member of our team, contact us at 01204 263047, info@greenercosts.co.uk, or through our website’s online form.