Report comment

The problem with the entire process is the form itself.

Who came up with the catchy title for the document ? Probably the same person who designed the form which has the following issues (this is not an exhaustive list) :-

1. It lacks much needed simplicity

2. It unduly complicates the parties claim for costs

3. It is confusingly structured

4. It's structure does not correspond with the CPR format of Bills of costs

5. It is split into sections without any apparent need for all splits

6. It does not enable parties to expand on pertinent aspects so as to justify certain elements of work

7. Certain total boxes are blanked out when, if completed, the form might make more sense

8. Even the Statement of truth caused problems before that had to be amended

9. The design of the form does not lend itself to amendment.

This form was inadequate as soon as it's "designer" created it.

A parties costs to date and anticipated costs can be broken down in a format which we use every day. That's a standard form Bill of costs. The format has been used for the last 16 years and there was no reason to depart from that when designing this incoherent and unsightly mess.

The form needs a total overhaul.

So rather than applying lipstick to the pig in the hope it makes for a pretty pig, why doesn't someone with some sense and bravery admit defeat, scrap the format and start again but before doing so, consult the people who know about costs.