Costs budgeting has traditionally been associated with lower and mid-value litigation, with the Civil Procedure Rules suggesting that claims exceeding £10 million will generally fall outside the regime. In practice, however, the position is becoming less clear.

Recent decisions indicate that the court is increasingly willing to impose a costs management order in high-value group actions where doing so is consistent with the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost. This raises an important question: is the £10 million threshold still a meaningful dividing line, or is it being overtaken by the realities of modern litigation?

 

Costs Budgeting Under the Civil Procedure Rules

Costs budgeting is governed by CPR 3.12 and forms a central part of case management in multi-track litigation. While the rules provide that costs budgeting will not normally apply to claims valued at £10 million or more, they also preserve the court’s discretion to order costs management where appropriate.

This discretion allows the court to move beyond the strict wording of the procedure rules and instead focus on whether costs budgeting would assist in achieving a fair and proportionate outcome in the circumstances of the case.

As a result, the application of costs budgeting is increasingly driven by context rather than value alone.

 

The Decision in White v Uber

The High Court’s decision in White & Ors v Uber London Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 2972 (Comm) provides a clear example of this approach in action.

The claim involved approximately 13,000 claimants and an overall pleaded value of around £340 million. On its face, this would place the case well outside the scope of costs budgeting under CPR 3.12.

The defendants applied to dispense with costs budgeting, arguing that the scale of the litigation, combined with the administrative burden of preparing budgets, made costs management unnecessary. They also submitted that the level of costs incurred was unlikely to be disproportionate in the context of the claim as a whole.

The court rejected that position and instead ordered that costs budgeting should apply, at least up to the conclusion of the preliminary issue trial.

 

What Drove the Court’s Decision?

The decision was not based on the headline value of the claim, but on a broader assessment of fairness and proportionality.

In particular, the court focused on:

• The fact that the claimants were predominantly individuals of modest means
• The need to ensure that the parties could participate on equal footing
• The role of litigation funding and ATE insurance in shaping exposure to costs
• The benefit of providing visibility over potential adverse costs

The court placed significant weight on the practical advantage of costs budgeting, particularly in allowing the claimants to understand their exposure and manage risk effectively.

These considerations were ultimately seen as outweighing the additional cost and administrative burden associated with preparing budgets.

 

Costs Management in Group Actions

The approach taken in White v Uber reflects a broader trend in group actions and large scale litigation.

Courts have shown an increasing willingness to intervene in order to control costs, even in cases where the scale and complexity might previously have justified a more hands-off approach. In the Pan-Noc emissions litigation, for example, the court made clear that even large and complex claims would not be given a “blank cheque” when it came to recoverable costs.

This has included close scrutiny of both estimated and incurred costs, as well as a willingness to make substantial reductions where costs are not considered proportionate.

In this context, costs budgeting is increasingly being used as a tool to manage litigation proactively, rather than leaving issues to be addressed at detailed assessment.

 

Is the £10 Million Threshold Still Relevant?

This decision raises a broader question about the continued relevance of the £10 million threshold.

While the rules suggest that costs budgeting should not normally apply above that level, the court’s discretion under CPR 3.12 means that the threshold is not determinative. Instead, the focus is on whether costs management will assist in achieving a proportionate and fair outcome.

In practice, this means that:

• The structure of the claim may matter more than its overall value
• Group actions involving large numbers of individual claimants may attract costs budgeting
• Funding arrangements and ATE insurance may influence the court’s approach
• Proportionality concerns remain relevant even in very high-value litigation

As a result, the threshold may increasingly be seen as a guideline rather than a rule.

 

Practical Implications for Litigators

For practitioners, the key point is that costs budgeting cannot be assumed to fall away in high-value group actions.

Parties should be prepared for the possibility that the court will order costs management, particularly where issues of fairness, funding, or proportionality arise.

This has a number of practical consequences:

• Costs budgets may need to be prepared even in claims exceeding £10 million
• Costs positions may be shaped earlier in the proceedings through case management
• The court may take a more active role in scrutinising both future and incurred costs
• Parties should consider the strategic impact of costs budgeting at an early stage

In many cases, it may not be safer to assume that costs budgeting will apply unless there is a clear reason why it should not.

 

The Role of Funding and Proportionate Cost

The increasing prevalence of litigation funding is likely to reinforce this trend.

Where claims are funded, the court is often concerned with ensuring that costs remain proportionate not only to the overall value of the litigation, but also to the individual claims and the resources of the parties involved.

This reflects the broader emphasis on achieving a proportionate cost outcome, in line with the overriding objective. It also suggests that costs management will continue to play a central role in complex and high-value litigation.

 

How Greener Costs Can Assist

The evolving approach to costs budgeting in group actions highlights the importance of early and strategic costs management.

Greener Costs provides specialist advice on all aspects of costs budgeting, including the preparation of budgets, negotiation with opposing parties, and representation in costs management hearings.

Where a costs management order is likely to be made, early input can help ensure that budgets are realistic, defensible, and aligned with the overall litigation strategy.

If you require support with costs budgeting, group actions, or wider costs issues, contact Greener Costs today:

📞 01204 263047
📧 info@greenercosts.co.uk

 

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the £10 million threshold prevent costs budgeting from applying?

No, the threshold does not prevent costs budgeting from applying. The court retains discretion to order costs management where it considers it appropriate.

Why are courts applying costs budgeting in group actions?

Courts are increasingly concerned with ensuring fairness and proportionality, particularly where there is an imbalance between the parties or where funding arrangements are involved.

Can incurred costs be reviewed under costs budgeting?

While incurred costs are subject to approval in the same way as future costs, they may still be scrutinised and can influence the court’s approach to the overall budget.

Does costs budgeting affect detailed assessment?

Yes, where a budget has been approved by the court, it can influence the outcome of a detailed assessment, particularly in relation to the reasonableness and proportionality of costs.