Cost Budgeting will apply to £340m claim
Mrs Justice O'Farrell's decision in White & Ors v Uber London Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 2972 (Comm) (22 October 2025) highlights that despite the defined exemption from Costs Budgeting for claims with a value exceeding £10m the court retains discretion on whether or not to costs manage a case.
The case relates to a claim brought by London Black Cab Drivers against the Uber Group for damages in respect of allegations of unlawful means conspiracy. The total claim value is around £340m but made up of modest claims by multiple Claimants who have elected to pursue a group action.
The Defendant made an application that Costs Budgeting should not apply. The Claimants contended that the claim was suitable for costs management.
Practice Points
The case highlights that the court always retain discretion with costs budgeting, even in those cases where costs management may ordinarily be disapplied. Here the claim greatly exceeded the £10m figure set out in CPR 3.12.
Parties in high value litigation ought to be aware that costs management can be ordered and overall there may be benefits to the same despite the time which would have to be spent in undertaking costs budgeting.
The key is that the overriding objective has to be kept in mind and that when considering this proportionality is not just weighted against the sums in issue. Here there were over 13,000 separate Claimants whose individual claims were modest despite the total value at around £340m. Moreover, the court had to keep in mind the road map of the litigation and that the individual Claimants needed to understand their costs exposure relative to the litigation funding available to them. Costs management would ensure visibility on costs for the Claimants, the Defendant and the court.
The Defendant's Arguments - Why Budgeting should not be ordered
The Defendant's arguments were helpfully summarised within the High Court's judgment:
"52. The defendants' case is that it is not appropriate in this case for the court to order costs management. I summarise the reasons for that submission. Firstly, the total amount claimed is estimated at about £340 million, obviously very significantly in excess of the threshold at which costs budgeting would normally cease to apply. Although it does not give rise to any presumption one way or the other, it is nonetheless a very relevant consideration because it can affect the court's assessment of whether costs management is necessary in order to ensure that the costs are proportionate to the case as a whole.
53. Secondly, there is no basis for the suggestion that the defendants have incurred or will likely incur disproportionate costs defending this claim and in support of that, it is said, well, the defendants have proposed the preliminary issue. One of the reasons for that is to facilitate a swift and cost effective end to the litigation. It is also the case that the defendants have indicated their spending to date is approximately £2 million, not indicating that there has been any loose spending or extravagant spending in the case to date.
54. Thirdly, it is submitted that the claimants don't require a costs management order for the purposes of arranging an appropriate ATE insurance policy in contrast to the facts in Sharp v Blank (above). They have already secured their litigation funding and ATE insurance and in particular, the ATE insurance will cover any adverse costs orders to the tune of £14 million. Therefore there is adequate coverage against adverse costs in that sum. It is unlikely that the costs of the preliminary issue trial will come close to exceeding the limit of that funding. And also, the defendants have offered to provide updates as to their total expenditure in relation to costs over the forthcoming months.
55. Fourthly, the disadvantages of costs budgeting are said by the defendants to be clear. They will add to the costs of the proceedings and divert resources that could otherwise be deployed in relation to the substance of the case. It is clear that a cost does attach to the preparation of costs budgets, the attendance at a costs management hearing and any subsequent changes to the costs budget.
56. It is also submitted that it is difficult to assess the various contingencies that are required in this case. In particular, it is not yet clear how many witnesses the claimants are likely to call at the preliminary issue. The DRD document has not yet been finalised and therefore there are a number of question marks over the value of producing costs budget at this stage and in addition, it is likely it add an additional layer of procedural complexity that is not necessary in this case."
The Claimants' Arguments - Why Costs Budgeting should be ordered
Again the High Court helpfully summarises the arguments of the Claimants in support of costs management:
"57. For their part, the claimants seek to persuade the court that it would be appropriate in this case to order costs budgeting. They submit that it would further the overriding objective, in particular the requirement that the parties should be placed on an equal footing, and that litigation should be conducted without needless expense and at proportionate cost.
58. In support of that submission, it is submitted, firstly, that the claimants are predominantly private individuals of modest means and that the relief that they seek on an individual level is approximately £15,000 per claimant. As a result of that, they are particularly concerned that they are sufficiently protected by ATE insurance against future adverse costs and therefore they need to have a reliable view of their exposure at an early stage of the case. In particular, they are concerned that if they need to top up their ATE insurance at a later stage, it would be prohibitively expensive.
59. Secondly, it is also submitted that the claimants should not be compelled to over-insure as a result of any uncertainty in the costs of the litigation. Again, it is said that if they are required to do that at a late stage, that will prove to be particularly expensive.
60. Thirdly, one of the advantages of costs management is said to be that it will eliminate the known unknowns; it will crystallise the parties' respective exposure to adverse costs in sums that cannot be exceeded at any subsequent detailed assessment without good reason. That is, if the court does costs budget, the costs budgets that are subsequently agreed or approved usually act as a cap as well as a floor. In those circumstances, the claimants will know in advance what sums they can reasonably draw down from their own funding for their costs and will know the ATE that they need to meet the defendants' costs.
61. Finally, it is said that this is a case where there is a risk that the costs will be disproportionate. It is said in relation to the individual claims, but it is also I think a wider point made in general terms, disproportionate to the nature and complexity of the case, including its value. For all those reasons, it is submitted that the court should make a costs budgeting order in this case."
The Court's View - Should Costs Budgeting be applied?
The High Court recognised that:
The court has discretion to do whatever it thinks is just and appropriate and in accordance with the overriding objective.
There is no presumption for or against requiring costs budget for claims that exceed the normal threshold of £10 million.
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, as explained by Coulson J (as he then was) in CIP Properties v Galliford Try [2014] EWHC 3546 (TCC) at [27]-[28]."
The court must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of costs budgeting when considering its discretion.
Mrs Justice O'Farrell considered thus:
"62. In weighing the advantages and disadvantages, the starting point must be the purpose for which costs budgeting has been introduced into the litigation field. The purpose of costs management is said to be 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.
63. This is a very high value claim when the amount claimed is compared to the usual limit above which the court does not require costs budgeting, that is £10 million. As has been stated, and in particular in the CIP Properties v Galliford Try case, that makes it less likely that the costs will appear to be disproportionate to the value of the case. However, it is not necessarily the position, particularly as the court has to consider a range of factors in terms of proportionality, not just the amount of money that is at stake.
64. Further, I note that the parties have agreed, and the court has ordered, the trial of a preliminary issue which certainly has the potential to shorten, or clarify, and therefore to ensure a speedy resolution to the case. That certainly indicates that the parties are cooperating and adopting a sensible approach to the management of this dispute.
65. However, the court is very aware of the fact that this is a large group action over 13,000 separate claimants and their claims individually are very modest indeed. In those circumstances, I consider that the real advantage of cost budgeting in this case is that the claimants will then have visibility of their exposure in respect of the defendants' costs.
66. Of course, I take the point that if the defendants succeed on the preliminary issue, that could well be an end to the litigation as a whole. The defendants have already indicated that they will keep the claimants aware of their incurred costs in the run-up to that trial and therefore, provided the claimants have sufficient funding and ATE insurance for the preliminary issues trial, which they clearly do at this stage, there is no issue. The costs will be subject to a detailed assessment, if not agreed, in the usual way and there will be no real advantage to any costs budgeting that the court embarks on at this stage.
67. However, the court also has to consider what might be the position if the claimants were to prevail at the preliminary issue trial. That would not necessarily be the end of the road for the litigation. The concern that is raised by the claimants is that there may have been too much eaten into their funding and ATE insurance at that stage so that it could impact adversely their ability to fight the subsequent proceedings.
68. This is a case where the individual claimants are entitled to carry out their own cost-benefit analysis of the proceedings at each stage. That will involve, not only tracking their own costs exposure through the percentage of damages, if any, that they might have to forego, but also in 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.
59. As against that, I acknowledge that ordering costs budgeting at this stage increases the burden on both sides, both in terms of the work that is required and the costs of preparing, exchanging, commenting on their costs budgets and potentially attending a costs budget hearing, although I note that that wouldn't be necessary if the parties were able to agree their costs budgets. However, 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.
70. For those reasons, the court will make a costs budgeting order."
We are always happy to talk any aspect of costs. Should you have any queries arising from this blog or generally then please get in touch for a chat either via phone 01482 534567 or e-mail info@carterburnett.co.uk.
