CCMC case management (Costs and Case Management Conference) occurs early on in the litigation process, establish directions for the case to proceed to Trial. A CCMC addresses both the directions for the case and the associated costs to be “budgeted” for the remainder of the litigation process. At a CCMC hearing, Costs Budgets will be assessed if an agreement has not been reached between parties.

The purpose of the CCMC is to ensure that the case moves forward in a structured and timely manner while addressing any financial aspects related the case and ensuring proportionality.  This gives both parties some certainty as to the level of costs exposure they face in the litigation, and allows the parties to assess their costs risk in proceeding with litigation.

Overview of the CCMC Case Management Hearing Process

The Costs and Case Management Conference is a procedural hearing in litigation that addresses the future conduct of the case and the associated costs. Its main objective is to ensure that both the case timetable and costs to be incurred are reasonable and proportionate to the complexity and value of the matter in dispute.  For the avoidance of doubt, the Court cannot determine the reasonableness of the costs incurred prior to the CCMC,  but can record commentary in the Order made on whether they are felt to be high or not, so that this can be taken into account at any subsequent detailed assessment hearing.

The CCMC reflects the overriding objective of the CPR, which seeks to resolve disputes justly, fairly, and proportionately in terms of time, complexity, and cost.

During the CCMC, the court addresses two main areas: 

Case management: The Court assesses the case schedule and establishes deadlines for exchanging evidence, submitting expert reports, and completing other essential litigation steps.  Traditionally (and if the hearing does not involve budgeting) such a hearing to deal with directions alone is known as a Case Management Conference (CMC).

Cost management: The court approves or revises the parties’ cost budgets, setting limits on the amount of legal costs that can be recovered by the winning party at the end of the trial.

CCMC Case Management – GS Woodland Court GP 1 Ltd & Anor v RGCM Ltd & Ors

The case GS Woodland Court GP 1 Ltd & Anor v RGCM Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 285 (TCC) involved a dispute over costs management in a construction related claim concerning alleged defects in student accommodation. The key issues revolved around the reasonableness and proportionality of costs claimed by the parties.

Mr. Justice Constable ruled that the Claimants had “lost” the costs management hearing given the significant reduction in costs applied to their Budget. The Court ultimately reduced the Claimant’s costs from a claimed £8.74 million to £4.212 million, finding the original budget to be unreasonable and disproportionate. The judge emphasised that Courts should take a more proactive approach in assessing whether a party’s conduct has unnecessarily led to increased costs and judicial resource use.

A notable aspect of the case was the scrutiny of high hourly rates claimed by the Claimants’ legal representatives.  This is of interest as, at the CCMC the Court is not conducting a detailed assessment and therefore does not generally pass comment on the rates claimed, though it is inevitably a factor that contributes to how the future costs are quantified (see CPR 3.15(8) in this regard in that hourly rates cannot be set at the CCMC).  

The judge in GS Woodlandcriticised the Claimants’ law firm, Jones Day, for charging £1,089 per hour for senior lawyers, which was significantly above the guideline hourly rate of £566.  The guideline rates were updated in January 2025, and the London 1 rate is specifically calculated to cater for “Very heavy commercial and corporate work by centrally based London firms”.  As such while some enhancement on rates can be claimed on detailed assessment, this is difficult to justify given the recent increase in guideline rates, and would not have stood the Claimants’ legal representative in good favour at the subject CCMC.

The Court ultimately rejected the argument that high costs were justified simply because the Defendants had also exceeded guideline rates.

The judge stated “… the Claimants have not attempted to justify their solicitors’ charging rates substantially in excess of the guideline rates. The only justification that Ms Packman advances for the rates claimed is that the other Defendants have claimed in excess of the guideline rates. But that is no justification. If the Claimants wanted to take a point about the Defendants’ rates they could have done so; instead, they have agreed them. That does not mean that I am bound to take the same view in relation to the Claimants’ claimed rates. I do not take that view.”

This case underscores the importance of cost proportionality in litigation and highlights judicial willingness to scrutinise excessive legal fees and costs budgets.

What is a Cost Management Order?

A Cost Management Order (CMO) is a court order issued during a CCMC in litigation. It sets out the approved costs budget for each party, ensuring that legal expenses remain proportionate to the complexity and value of the case.

Importantly, the CMO ensures that both parties are aware of the cost limits from the outset for each of the individual phases of the Costs Budget, including:

• Issues/Statements of Case;
• CMC;
• Disclosure;
• Witness Statements;
• Expert Reports
• PTR;
• Trial Preparation;
• Trial;
• ADR;
• Any Contingents

The making of a CMO ultimately assists in preventing any surprises regarding recoverable costs at the end of the litigation process.

Although the CMO binds the parties to the agreed or approved budget, there is still some flexibility. If circumstances change significantly during the litigation, parties can apply to revise their costs budget proactively under the Precedent T process.

Retrospective permission can be obtained, via the “good reason” principle, but this is a high threshold to overcome, and also one must show they could not have reasonably proactively have applied for a Budget increase.

How can ARC Costs Assist with Your Costs?

ARC Costs provide a professional cost drafting and advocacy service, and as independent experts we can assist either the Claimant or Defendant parties. 

For CCMC Case Management, we can assist by drafting a Precedent H Costs Budget, ensuring that all future costs are anticipated correctly, and maximising your costs recovery on a successful outcome. We can also assist in the preparation of a Precedent R, as well as engaging in discussions with your litigation opponent to negotiate Costs Budgets. If your budget cannot be agreed, we can provide advocacy services at CCMC Case Management hearings.

We can be contacted by email at info@arccosts.co.uk, or speak to one of our experts by telephone on 01204 397302. For more information on legal costs, please find out more about our areas of expertise and our services on our legal costs page.

Follow Us