Report comment

Sorry anon 06:05 but that post does not betray any lack of understanding about costs budgeting. Apart from that you're spot on.

@ DC no we should not follow the US system of punitive damages. The McD case is a great example (a good case in my view but the punitive damages were bonkers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants )

And a contingency fee for say 30% of damages when it's a clinical negligence case with damages at £5k but costs to trial, including experts, around £30k? Or another clin neg case with quantum at around £200k, agreed budget to trial at circa £200k, but the firm at 30% would get £60k?

Contingency costs may well work in some cases but not all, and if you have some on contingency some not then you have a horrendous system to adjudicate on.

Costs budgeting is awesome for those cases destined for trial. For the rest it just needs a strict assessment to ensure no wasted time is paid for. But which cases will go to trial......... On a broad brush approach the cost of cost budgeting isn't worthwhile when compared with the good it does on those cases where it works.