Overview

Presented by Tom Jenkinson of Erimus Chambers, this is the first in a series of webinars examining recent costs decisions and their practical implications for personal injury practitioners. 

The webinar will cover when a costs budget can be varied and what amounts to a “significant development”; whether without prejudice breakdowns of costs can be used against you at detailed assessment; and how to present costs information to the court to secure the best possible payment on account.

Through a practical analysis of three recent cases, delegates will gain a clearer understanding of how the courts approach these issues, identify risks and opportunities, and adapt their advice and litigation strategy to improve costs outcomes.

Learning Objectives

By the end of the webinar, delegates will be able to:

• Explain the threshold for revising a costs budget, and distinguish a “significant development” from the ordinary twists and turns of a personal injury claim
• Protect the ability to vary a budget later by drafting budget assumptions, consent orders and supporting evidence with a future variation in mind
• Prepare costs breakdowns for negotiations properly: without prejudice and warning labels, what to strip out, and what to tell the other side
• Recognise when without prejudice protection over costs information can be lost, and the risks if it is
• Build a payment on account application that justifies the legal team, hourly rates and use of counsel, and identify when to seek payments on account  

Cases Covered

Bassey v Whittaker & Watford Insurance [2026] EWHC 2126 (KB)
Costs budgets and variations
A catastrophic brain injury claim. The directions were extended by consent, the claimant served a Precedent T seeking a further £238,000, and the district judge increased the budget even though he found no significant development. 

Ian Henderson & Jonathan McPherson v Ministry of Defence [2026] EWHC 2645 (SCCO)
Without prejudice breakdowns of costs
In military noise-induced hearing loss claims, the claimants’ solicitors sent without prejudice costs breakdowns to agree 50% payments on account. The formal bills later came in lower – by around £8,000 in one claim and £30,000 in another. The MoD alleged systematic overcharging and misconduct, and sought to rely on the breakdowns at detailed assessment. The costs judge refused: there was no unambiguous impropriety, so the breakdowns stayed without prejudice.

Bourlakova & Ors v The Estate of Oleg Bourlakov & Ors [2026] EWHC 2593 (BP)
How to maximise payments on account of costs
The successful parties sought a payment on account. Their large, senior-heavy legal team led the judge to doubt the usual 60% rule of thumb. He cut rates back to the guideline hourly rates for payment on account purposes and then allowed 50%.

This webinar is part of a two-session series. 

The second part can be found by clicking here