Precedent T: varying a costs budget.

Precedent T is the budget variation form used to explain proposed changes to an approved or agreed costs budget following a significant development in litigation. It identifies the affected phases, the variation sought and the reasons for it. It is not a replacement for the original budget or a way to secure automatic payment of additional fees.

Precedent H presents the ordinary costs budget; Precedent R records budget discussions; Precedent T addresses subsequent variations. Check the court order and applicable procedure. Costs management does not apply to every claim. Qualifying simplified-budget pilot claims use Precedent TZ instead: check venue, issue date, claim value and exclusions under the relevant direction. This guide concerns the ordinary CPR 3.15A route in England and Wales.

CPR 3.15A requires a party to revise budgeted costs upwards or downwards where significant developments warrant revision. The question is what has changed since the previous budget was approved or agreed, and how that change affects the work required. A larger invoice or a depleted phase allowance does not, by itself, establish a significant development.

Possible examples include additional expert evidence ordered after budgeting, materially expanded disclosure or a substantial change in the trial timetable. None automatically qualifies. Compare the development with the original directions and assumptions: work already allowed for should not be claimed again. Equally, abandoned issues or a reduced evidence exercise may justify a downward revision.

Gather the last approved or agreed budget, costs management order, original assumptions and previous variations. Add the document establishing the change, such as amended directions, an expert order or correspondence defining new disclosure. Record when the development arose, when its significance became apparent and which phases it affects. A short chronology makes the timing understandable.

Ask the conducting solicitor to describe the additional tasks, personnel, estimated hours and disbursements. Separate work already done because of the development from work still forecast. Reconcile the figures with the ledger and existing allowances. Keep invoices and estimates available to support the calculation rather than attaching an unfiltered file without explaining its relevance.

Use the official spreadsheet and its current instructions. Identify the case, existing budget and phases affected, then show the proposed change clearly. The explanation should connect each figure to the development: what new work is necessary, why the existing allowance does not cover it and how the revised amount was calculated. Keep unaffected work out of the variation.

CPR 3.15A requires particulars to be confined to additional costs occasioned by the significant development and certification that those costs are not included in previous budgeted costs or variations. Check the prescribed certification carefully. Do not hide ordinary overspend within new estimates, double count an expert fee or silently rewrite the original assumptions to make the variation fit.

Suppose directions require an additional expert discipline after the budget was approved. For illustration only, the proposed expert-phase increase is £6,000: £4,000 for the report and £2,000 for associated solicitor work, excluding VAT. The draft explains the new discipline, relevant order, tasks and estimate, then checks that neither amount appears in the existing expert allowance.

If the report also creates further witness or trial-preparation work, explain those phase changes separately rather than adding a general percentage. If another report is no longer needed, identify that saving. These invented figures are not recommended fees or an entitlement: significance, necessity, proportionality and the court’s decision still determine whether the variation is allowed.

The revising party must serve the prescribed particulars on every other party and seek agreement promptly. Record agreement, partial agreement and objections by phase. An opponent’s response should address the development, duplication and calculation, not merely reject the overall increase. Focused legal costs negotiation can narrow what the judge needs to decide.

Submit the particulars promptly to the court with the last approved or agreed budget and an explanation of any differences. Agreement does not remove this court-submission step. The court may approve, vary or disallow the proposal, or list another costs management hearing. The rule says promptly, not a universal fixed number of days; check directions and act without avoidable delay.

CPR 3.15A(6) permits the court, when making a variation order, to vary the budget for related costs incurred after the costs management order but before the variation order. That is a discretion, not automatic retrospective approval. Identify those costs separately, explain their connection to the development and account for the timing of your request.

Precedent T is not an appeal against the original budget or permission to rebudget everything because the estimate proved inadequate. Nor does approval settle every question at detailed assessment. Keep the varied budget and order with the file so a later bill of costs can be reconciled against the correct phase allowances and procedural history.

A revised court budget and an updated client estimate serve different purposes. Increasing the recoverable budget does not guarantee that the opponent will pay all fees, and does not itself authorise whatever the solicitor charges under the retainer. Explain the changed work, expected cost, prospects of recovery and possible client shortfall in plain language.

For help, send our team the budget, order, development chronology, proposed figures and next deadline. Our Costs Lawyers are regulated by the Costs Lawyer Standards Board; a Costs Lawyer has input into every drafting instruction. We can assist with preparation, opponent review and costs management advocacy, keeping the figures connected to the actual litigation plan.