UK: Court Imposes a Costs Cap

Last Updated: 19 June 2003

In a ground-breaking decision in the High Court, a costs cap has recently been ordered under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The costs cap is to apply both retrospectively and prospectively up to the end of the trial. The order was made in the Nationwide Organ Group Litigation (A B & Others v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2003] EWHC 1034). The judge held that in group litigation there is a clear risk that costs may become disproportionate and excessive and therefore the costs cap order was necessary to keep costs within bounds. However there seems no reason why the decision should not be followed by judges in other large-scale litigation.


Since the inception of the CPR in April 1999, parties are required to provide the court and each other with estimates as to the likely costs to be incurred in conducting a matter. The estimates must be provided to the court at certain stages of the litigation and, until recently, have received little attention. In recent decisions, however, the courts have started to use their case management powers to control costs by relying on the parties' estimates. For example, the courts have begun taking into account a party's estimate filed during the course of litigation when assessing retrospectively the costs that will be allowed to be recovered by that party.

In the Nationwide Organ Group Litigation, Mr Justice Gage has gone further and for the first time used his case management powers to rely on the parties' estimates to impose a costs cap on the claimants' costs in relation to certain retrospective costs and also prospectively up until the end of trial. The parties have liberty to apply to vary the order, but only in the event of some future unforeseen and exceptional factor which affects costs.


This group litigation arises out of the practice by various hospitals to retain the organs of deceased children and adults. This practice was discovered in 1999, following which individual claims were made by claimants against the different hospitals involved through many different firms of solicitors. Because of the number of claims involved and common features of each of them, the claims were later grouped together and two Group Litigation Orders (GLOs) were made. The first GLO related to the Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital at Alder Hey, Liverpool and the second GLO, made in the current litigation, was in respect of all other hospitals and became known as the Nationwide Organ Group Litigation.

Earlier this year, Mr Justice Gage gave orders for directions for the conduct of the Nationwide Organ Group Litigation leading up to a trial commencing in January 2004 estimated to last for 4 to 6 weeks. The trial will involve four lead cases. (There have been 2,100 potential claims notified, although at the date of this judgment only 369 claims had been registered.) The causes of action are expressed as negligent failure to counsel bereaved relatives; breach of statutory duty; negligent failure to provide information; wrongful interference with a body; and deceit. Damages claimed will include aggravated and exemplary damages; and damages for breach of human rights. The parties agree that the legal issues are complex but, in the judge's view, the factual disputes are likely to be less complicated.

The costs capping order arose out of a request by the defendants. The claimants did not seek any such order in respect of the defendants' costs. At the hearing of the application, the judge sat with Senior Costs Judge Hurst, with whom he discussed the issues in this case.

Power to make a costs cap order

Gage J considered in some detail in his judgment whether the court has the power to make a costs cap order. He acknowledged that the CPR gives the court no specific power to make a costs cap order. However the Supreme Court Act 1981 (as amended) gives the court wide powers in relation to costs and the CPR also provides the court with extensive and wide-ranging general case management powers to be carried out in accordance with the overriding objective in CPR 1.1. The general case management powers are contained in Part 3 of the CPR and the powers in relation to costs are in Parts 43 and 44. Section 6 of the Practice Direction about costs also deals with estimates of costs and provides that parties and their legal representatives must take certain steps to keep the parties informed about their potential liabilities to costs and in order to assist the court to decide what, if any, order to make about costs and case management. In light of these provisions, the judge resolved that he had the power to make a costs cap order. He stated:

"In my opinion the general powers of case management and in particular CPR 3.1(2)(m) and 44.3 are sufficiently wide to encompass the making of such an order in both GLOs and other actions. In addition, the provision for Estimates of Costs in the Practice Direction about Costs is, in my view, in keeping with such a power."

The judge also referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Solutia UK Limited v Griffiths [2001] EWCA Civ 736 which he found gave "further encouragement for the controlling of costs". In that case Sir Christopher Staughton stated:

"So surely case management powers will allow a judge in the future to exercise the power of limiting costs, either indirectly or even directly, so that they are proportionate to the amount involved."

Gage J held that in group litigation the desirability of ensuring that costs are kept within reasonable bounds made it unnecessary for the court to require exceptional circumstances to be shown before exercising its discretion to make a costs cap order. However he noted that this might be required in other types of litigation, for example, administrative cases.

Factors to be taken into account
Before the order was made, the claimants argued that to impose a cap which is too draconian would be a breach of the claimants' human rights. However the judge found that the large sums which had already been spent in this case and the estimate put forward for future costs indicated that there was a clear risk that costs may become disproportionate and excessive. As at February 2003 the claimants had already spent £1.45m on generic issues (in addition to substantial sums incurred in respect of individual claimants) and the claimants estimated they would need to spend an additional £1m up to and including trial. Gage J said that the costs cap order was therefore necessary to keep the costs within bounds. In making the order, he took into account the following matters in this case:

  1. The order for costs must be proportionate with the amount at stake and the complexity of the issues. He referred to the two-fold test of proportionality, namely, a global test to see if the sum is proportionate to the amount at stake and, secondly, if the global sum is disproportionate then the court should look at the component parts in order to determine if they are proportionate (see Lownds v Home Office [2002] EWCA Civ 365).
  2. The judge accepted the claimants' estimate of damages of approximately £15m (which may be discounted for claims which fail on the facts) as being more realistic than the defendants' estimate of no more than £3m. Therefore, if the number of claimants is 2,100, the judge calculated that the average sum in damages per claim would be just over £7,000 which he said was "a not unreasonable figure".

  3. The costs cap should only relate to costs incurred in relation to generic issues.
  4. In conducting a costs cap exercise, the judge found that he must adopt a broad approach. It is not possible, nor would it be cost effective, for the court to go into the minutiae of each item.
  5. The judge found he must be careful not to assess the claimants' costs solely on the basis of the sum for which the defendants' solicitors and counsel have agreed to conduct the litigation. This may provide a guide to costs, but it should not be the sole or dominant factor.
  6. In assessing the global figure at which costs will be capped, the judge said he would do so on the basis that the trial will last no longer than 4 weeks. If it lasts for longer, this will be a factor which may give rise to an application to vary the order.
  7. Having assessed the global sum comprising the various component parts, at the conclusion of the trial, the judge stated he hoped to be able to make an order for costs which would avoid the necessity for most, if not all, of the costs to be the subject of a detailed assessment. The order would, of course, only be in respect of costs actually incurred up to the limit of the costs cap.
  8. The judge gave liberty to each party to apply to vary the order in the event of any unforeseen and exceptional additional costs arising; or in the event of an unforeseen event leading to a reduction in costs.

Component parts
The judge then made findings in relation to the following four component parts based on the costs estimates presented to the court by both parties:

  1. Solicitors' costs
  2. Counsels' fees
  3. Experts' fees
  4. Other disbursements

There were no major disputes between the parties in relation to experts' fees and other disbursements, however the claimants' estimates for solicitors' costs and counsels' fees far exceeded the defendants' estimates. In relation to the solicitors' costs, the judge assessed broadly what work had been done and was yet to be done and applied a common hourly rate of £155 per hour, rather than attempt to calculate the number of hours to be worked by each grade of fee-earner. He accepted that the preparation work by the claimants' solicitors up to trial will be greater than that of the defendants, but there would be no difference in the workload during the trial. In relation to counsels' fees, he found that counsel on each side will be involved in much the same amount of work. In calculating figures for each of the component parts, Gage J took into account advice from the senior costs judge. He concluded that there should be a costs cap on the claimants' costs from February 2003 to the end of trial in the total sum of £506,500, namely, approximately half of the sum which had been sought by the claimants.


The courts have been paying increasing attention to parties' estimates over recent months and using them to control, after the event, costs recoverable from the other parties. This decision takes this process one stage further, with the judge controlling recoverable costs in advance of their being incurred.

What this means in practice is that parties will need to take great care in preparing costs estimates. If the estimate is too low and further costs are incurred, the court may not allow their recovery on a summary or detailed assessment. Too high and the opposing parties may ask the court to impose a costs cap during the course of the litigation. The cap in this case was of course imposed in the context of a GLO, but there seems no reason in principle why a similar approach might not be taken in other large-scale litigation.

The judge's indication that he hopes to avoid the necessity for a full detailed assessment of costs is also of interest. If this approach is adopted more generally, it will further emphasize the importance of costs estimates and the care which parties will need to take in their preparation.

Article by Anna Pertoldi, Mark Terry and Kate Hurford

© Herbert Smith 2003

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

For more information on this or other Herbert Smith publications, please email us.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.