Report comment

The whole exercise is a farce. The only importance of costs budgeting to the parties is having more than a complete guess as to the opponent's costs, so one can weigh up settlement options and overall exposure. For that, it is rarely helpful to have anything as detailed as Precedent H. The process should be a lot more simple, without automatic dire consequences if the estimate turns out to have been wildly optimistic - that's something for the costs judge to take into account at the end. Low value cases can have a fixed costs regime, with some wiggle room for the costs judge. Like it was pre-CPR.