The owners of this site offer no guarantee or responsibility for the accuracy of
the information and views contained within the articles published on the site. By
using this site you agree to be bound by its Terms & Conditions.
When are they required?
In civil cases Estimates of Costs (CPR Precedent H) should most commonly be produced:
- At Allocation Stage
- At Listing Stage
- Within 28 days the court making an order for disclosure of estimates (unless otherwise
specified by the order).
Under Rule 3.1 a new section was inserted into the CPR (2005 amendment no.3) after
sub-paragraph (1) to say that the courts have been given extra powers at (11) to
“order any party to file and serve an estimate of costs;".
You do not need to file and serve an Estimate at Allocation stage if the claim is
pleaded as a Small Claim or if you are a Litigant in Person.
What should be included?
The relevant part of the Civil Procedure Rules is Costs Practice Direction 6. This
part sets out that an Estimate of Costs should include:
- Base profit costs and disbursements incurred to date
- An estimate of Base profit costs and disbursements to be incurred, in so far as
the party preparing the Estimate expects to recover from the opponent if that party
A party is not required to disclose any additional liabilities in the Estimate. See
The effects on Assessment
The courts can have regard to Estimates previously filed, on Summary Assessment.
On Detailed Assessment, a paying party can seek a statement of explanation from the
receiving party if a final bill varies, by more than 20%, from an Estimate previously
served. The Court may consider the variation and reasons given in considering whether
the overall costs claimed are disproportionate or unreasonable in amount.
The Court may also refer to Estimates of Costs when deciding what amount should be
paid by way of a payment on account of costs prior to an assessment of costs. See
Cases to consider
One of the most significant decisions to deal with the importance of Estimates of
Costs and implications on between the parties costs recovery is Edwards -v- Garbutt
Wong -v- Vizards 
Solutia UK -v- Griffiths  EWCA Civ 736
Master Cigars -v- Withers LLP
Leigh -v- Michelin Tyres
Burns & Adcock -v- Novartis Grimsby Ltd & Tioxide Group  QBD Sheffield, 16th
The Claimant’s costs were not limited to the amount stated in their Estimate of Costs
filed at Allocation stage. The circumstances of the case had changed significantly
since the allocation questionnaires were filed. The case had become complex because
of issues raised in the Fairchild -v- Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd  UKHL
22 case. In the circumstances it was not considered appropriate for the Estimate
to be used when assessing costs.
For an authority on Estimates of Costs and the effects on orders for security for
costs see Biomark Products -v- Bragg  EWHC 1767 (Ch).
In France -v- McVeigh  Doncaster County Court, 26th June 2003, the Defendants
failed in their attempt to apply for an order capping costs in the early stages of
a low value RTA case. It was considered disproportionate to spend time carrying out
such an exercise. Such application only served to increase costs in low value cases.
Detailed Assessment at the end of the case would ensure that proportionate costs
would be awarded. Furthermore, limiting the costs at an early stage could mean that
the parties would not be on an “equal footing” as per the Overriding Objective of
In Willis -v- Nicholson  - Costs capping cannot be retrospective. The Court
of Appeal directed the question of Estimates and costs capping to the Rules Committee.