Costs budgeting in group litigation

At a recent group action case management hearing in White and others v Uber London Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 2972 (Comm), Mrs Justice O’Farrell helpfully explained the approach the courts will take when determining whether to order costs budgeting in group litigation. The case concerns 13,000 claims by London black cab drivers against the defendants, the Uber Group, for damages in respect of allegations of unlawful means conspiracy. 

At the first case management conference, O’Farrell J ordered a preliminary issue trial on limitation and heard the defendants’ application for an order that CPR 3.2 and Practice Direction 3D dealing with costs budgeting should not apply. The defendants made the application on the grounds that the claim forms did not contain a statement that the claims were valued at more than £10m (CPR 3.12).  

Principles

O’Farrell J set out the following principles which the court should consider and apply when determining whether to dispense with costs budgeting in group litigation proceedings:

• The court has discretion to do what it thinks is just and appropriate and in accordance with the overriding objective.
• There is no presumption for or against requiring costs budgets for claims that exceed the normal threshold of £10m. The court’s discretion is wholly unfettered (see Sharp v Blank [2015] EWHC 2685 (Ch)).
• The threshold at which costs budgeting ceases to apply is in part because the higher the value of the claim, the less likely it is that issues of proportionality will be important or even relevant (see CIP Properties v Galliford Try [2014] EWHC 3546 (TCC)).
• The court must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of costs budgeting when deciding whether to exercise its discretion in all the circumstances of the case.

The defendants argued that costs budgeting should not apply because the claim exceeded £340m, there was no indication of disproportionate defence costs, the claimants did not need a costs management order to obtain after-the-event insurance, budgeting would increase costs and contingencies such as witness numbers were unclear. The claimants contended that costs budgeting would further the overriding objective by promoting equality of arms and proportionality, prevent over-insurance, clarify the parties’ exposure to adverse costs by setting binding limits and address the risk of disproportionate costs in the litigation.

Decision and commentary

O’Farrell J stated that, in weighing the advantages and disadvantages, the starting point must be the purpose for which costs budgeting has been introduced. As she explained: ‘The purpose of costs management is to further the overriding objective in dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost. The overriding objective is designed to ensure that the case can be dealt with ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing and can participate fully in the proceedings, saving expense and dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the amount of money involved, to the importance of the case, to the complexity of the issues and to the financial position of each party, in each case ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly.’

O’Farrell J noted that this was a very high-value claim as compared to the limit of £10m, above which the court does not require costs budgeting and, as CIP Properties makes clear, that made it less likely that the costs will be disproportionate to the value of the case. Although this was a large group action in which the individual claims are very modest, O’Farrell observed that there was a real advantage of cost budgeting because the claimants will have visibility of their exposure in respect of the defendants’ costs and that this was a case where the individual claimants were entitled to carry out their own cost-benefit analysis of the proceedings at each stage. That would involve, inter alia, tracking the funding and ATE that gets eaten up by their own costs and by exposure to the other side’s costs in terms of the wider funding for the litigation in general. Although O’Farrell J acknowledged that ordering costs budgeting at this stage may increase the burden on both sides, she explained that ‘those burdens are outweighed by the real advantage in having visibility at this stage as to the estimates of costs in respect of the period up to the end of the preliminary issue trial that will more easily enable the court to keep an eye on and manage the costs of this litigation’. 

The decision in White v Uber illustrates the increasingly nuanced approach the courts will take when managing costs in complex, high-value group actions. Despite the value of the claim exceeding the £10m threshold at which costs budgeting typically falls away, O’Farrell J’s reasoning demonstrates that value alone is not a determinative factor. The court will focus on furthering the overriding objective and will consider the broader rationales underpinning the costs budgeting regime. More broadly, O’Farrell J’s analysis makes clear that, although the court’s discretion to dispense with costs budgeting in high-value claims is unfettered, it is principled. 

The decision reinforces the fact that proportionality concerns, equality of arms and the efficient use of litigation resources remain central considerations even in the largest of group actions. As collective actions continue to expand in both scale and complexity, the decision in White v Uber provides important guidance on how courts will utilise and apply procedural mechanisms to ensure that group litigation remains manageable and fair.

Masood Ahmed is an associate professor at the University of Leicester and a member of the Law Society’s Dispute Resolution Committee. Dr Lal Akhter (FCIArb) is a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, a lawyer, independent arbitrator and a mediator associated with Docket Live (Leicester) and Wiseman Solicitors (Bolton)