The Bank of Ireland & Anor v Philip Pank Partnership
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- The Honourable Mr Justice Stuart-Smith
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Claimant exchanged costs budgets without a full Statement of Truth due to error from external draftsmen. The Defendant argued non-compliance with CPR 3.13 which would require relief from sanctions under CPR 3.14. The court held that the Claimant's action was an irregularity and not a nullity, rejecting the need for sanctions.
Judgment
Mr Justice Stuart-Smith:
On 24 January 2014, 7 days before the original date for this CMC, the parties exchanged costs budgets. The sums included in the Claimant’s costs budget are not disputed as such but the Defendant takes a point on the form of the budget that was exchanged. The Claimant adopted Precedent H, but on the first page failed to include a full Statement of Truth. Instead, the document had the words “[Statement of Truth]” immediately above the place for signature and dating by the Claimant’s legal representative. The document was signed and dated by a partner in the Claimant’s firm of solicitors. Since then, a further copy of the Claimant’s budget has been served which is in identical form save that a full Statement of Truth is included.
The Defendant submits that, on these facts, the Claimant failed to file and exchange a costs budget on 24 January 2014. The point was first taken in the evening of Monday 10 February 2014, 17 days after the budgets had been exchanged and one clear day before today’s CMC. In response, the Claimant issued an application applying for relief from sanctions if the Court took the view that the Claimant had not filed and exchanged a costs budget on 24 January. The application is supported by a witness statement from the solicitor concerned who explains that, contrary to his normal practice, he had this costs budget prepared by external draftsmen who assured him that it was ready to sign. Acting on that assurance he failed to notice that the document did not include the full Statement of Truth. He says, and I readily accept, that when signing and dating the document his intention was to signify that to the best of his knowledge the budget was true and accurate.
CPR 3.13 and 3.14 provide:
“3.13 Unless the court otherwise orders, all parties except litigants in person must file and exchange budgets as required by the rules or as the court otherwise directs. Each party must do so by the date specified in the notice served under rule 26.3(1) or, if no such date is specified, seven days before the first case management conference.
3.14 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.”
PD3E deals with the required format in the following terms:
“Budget format
Unless the court otherwise orders, a budget must be in the form of Precedent H annexed to this Practice Dir