I had an interesting email this morning from Jon Heath, solicitor at Levins, Liverpool. It dealt with the issue of costs budgeting in a fatal case where there is a child involved.
BUDGETING, FATAL ACCIDENTS AND CHILDREN CLAIMS
“I recently attended a CCMC at the County Court at Liverpool on behalf of the claimant in a fatal accident claim. The claim is a dependency claim brought by the deceased’s partner on her own behalf and that of the couple’s infant son. I argued that budgeting did not apply at all on the basis of CPR 3.12(1)(c); opposing counsel argued, in effect, that the exception only applies to claims brought exclusively on behalf of a child, and hence that the claim had to be budgeted. District Judge Benson opted for the middle way, holding that the partner’s claim was subject to budgeting but the child’s claim not. No sanction was applied, perhaps in reflection of the fact that we had made an application to court before the CCMC seeking a resolution of the point, which had unhelpfully been listed for hearing at the CCMC itself. I thought the decision might be of some use to you as a data point if nothing more.”
FATAL ACCIDENTS AND ACTIONS ARISING FROM DEATH 