The decision in Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust remains a key authority on the relationship between costs budgeting and detailed assessment. For practitioners involved in civil litigation, the case provides important clarity on whether a receiving party can recover more than their approved or agreed budgeted costs.

Background

The case concerned a personal injury claim issued in April 2013 against an NHS foundation trust, specifically University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust. As part of the case management process, the parties prepared and exchanged costs budgets, which were subsequently approved by the court.

During the course of the litigation, the claimant incurred costs that exceeded elements of the approved budget. When the matter proceeded to detailed assessment, the central issue became whether those additional costs could be recovered.

At first instance, Master Whalan considered the interaction between the approved budget and the detailed assessment process. The matter was later considered by the Court of Appeal, with judgment delivered by Sir Terence Etherton, alongside Tomlinson LJ and Sir Geoffrey Vos.

The Key Issue

The key question before the court was whether a receiving party could recover more than the approved budget during detailed assessment proceedings.

In particular, the court considered the correct interpretation of CPR 3.18, which governs the treatment of costs budgets. The rule provides that where a costs budget has been approved or agreed, the court will not depart from it unless there is “good reason” to do so.

This raised an important point for practitioners: does detailed assessment allow parties to revisit budgeted figures, or are they effectively capped?

The Court’s Decision

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the approved budget acts as a strong controlling factor in costs recovery. In practical terms, a receiving party will not usually be able to recover more than the approved or agreed budgeted costs unless they can demonstrate a good reason to depart from it.

The court emphasised that a detailed assessment is not an opportunity to reopen or challenge the budgeting exercise. Instead, it operates within the framework already set by the approved budget.

This approach reinforced the earlier decision in Merrix v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, confirming consistency in how costs judges should approach budgeted costs.

In giving judgment, the court acknowledged that it may sometimes be “difficult to see the sense” in preventing recovery of costs that were reasonably incurred but exceeded the budget. However, it made clear that the purpose of costs management is to provide certainty and control over litigation expenditure.

Why This Case Matters

The decision in Harrison v UHCW has significant implications for both receiving and paying parties.

For receiving parties, it underlines the importance of ensuring that costs budgets are accurate and realistic from the outset. Once approved, the scope for recovering additional costs is limited, even where those costs may have been reasonably incurred.

For paying parties, the case provides a strong basis for resisting attempts to recover costs in excess of the approved budget during detailed assessment.

More broadly, the case reinforces the role of costs budgeting as a central feature of modern civil litigation, designed to promote proportionality and predictability in legal costs.

Practical Takeaways

The key takeaway from Harrison v UHCW is that costs budgeting is not merely a procedural step, but a substantive limit on recoverable costs. Practitioners should approach the preparation of a costs budget with care, ensuring that all anticipated work is properly accounted for at the outset. Once a budget is approved, recovering more than the approved figures will require a clear and justifiable reason, which is not easily established in practice. As a result, both litigators and costs professionals must treat the budgeting stage as a critical point in the lifecycle of a claim, rather than something that can be revisited at detailed assessment.

How Greener Costs Can Support

Aside from the rules and procedures governing civil litigation, Greener Costs provides specialist support across all aspects of costs budgeting, recovery, negotiation, and detailed assessment proceedings.

Whether you are preparing a costs budget, seeking to recover costs within an approved budget, or challenging excessive claims, expert input can help ensure the best possible outcome.

If you would like support or advice, you can contact the team at:

Email: info@greenercosts.co.uk
Telephone: 01204 263047

Early involvement can make a significant difference, particularly in ensuring that budgets are robust, realistic, and defensible throughout the litigation process.