Julian Thirsk and Emma King v Berkeley Homes (North East London) Limited and Berkeley Homes (Capital) PLC [2026] EWHC 215 (TCC)

SCCSI

(Providing Elite Certification Programmes to Construction Professionals Since 2009)

Explore Our Construction Claims and Contracts Certification Programmes

Presented by

Society of Construction Claims
Specialists International

sccsinternational.org

Julian Thirsk and Emma King v Berkeley Homes (North East London) Limited and Berkeley Homes (Capital) PLC

[2026] EWHC 215 (TCC) | High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court

Before Mr Roger ter Haar KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge | Heard Decision on the papers | Handed down 5 February 2026

Interactive Process Flow | Costs budgeting in a residential defects claim

Case Analysis Process Flow

0 of 7 nodes explored

1. Case Overview

Case: Julian Thirsk and Emma King v Berkeley Homes (North East London) Limited and Berkeley Homes (Capital) PLC [2026] EWHC 215 (TCC)
Court: High Court of Justice, Technology and Construction Court
Judge: Mr Roger ter Haar KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Hearing Date: Decision on the papers
Judgment Date: 5 February 2026
Case No: HT-2020-000472

After a costs and case management conference, the claimants' budget was agreed at £1,157,107.19 but the defendants' budget remained disputed. The court determined reasonable and proportionate estimated costs phase by phase for an eight-day trial concerning alleged defects in original and remedial flat works (paragraphs 1-6 and 57-60).

Central Legal Test: Under CPR 3.15, CPR 3.17 and PD3E, the court approved phase totals within a reasonable and proportionate range, taking incurred costs into account but not approving them or fixing hourly rates. Costs management was a broad-brush exercise rather than advance detailed assessment (paragraphs 7-8).

Underlying Claim

The flat owners alleged contract, Defective Premises Act and negligence breaches in 2012 construction and 2014-2015 remediation. The pleaded value rose to about £1.2 million (paragraphs 4-6).

Budget Dispute

The defendants' proposed budget materially exceeded the claimants' agreed budget, leading to detailed comparison across disclosure, evidence, trial and ADR phases.

2. Procedural History

Paper Determination

The court directed written resolution after agreement could not be reached following the October 2025 CCMC (paragraphs 1-3).

Updated Budgets

The parties were directed to produce revised budgets reflecting the approved phase figures and related adjustments (paragraphs 57-60).

3. Defendant's Position

The defendants sought higher allowances, particularly for experts, senior solicitor involvement, leading and junior counsel, trial preparation and trial.

Expert and Counsel Input

They relied on the technical evidence and proposed senior legal team needed for the defects trial.

Phase Totals

Their estimates included £548,850 for trial preparation, £435,750 for trial and £50,200 for ADR (paragraphs 37-53).

4. Claimant's Position

The claimants said the defendants' estimates were excessive compared with their own budget and made lower phase offers.

Proportionality

They relied on the value, complexity, eight-day trial and their lower equivalent costs.

Budget Offers

They proposed reductions across witnesses, experts, trial preparation, trial, ADR and contingent application costs.

5. Court's Analysis

Expert Reports

The court allowed £220,000 after reducing solicitors and counsel estimates while retaining £140,000 expert fees (paragraphs 24-32).

PTR and Preparation

£60,000 was allowed for the PTR and £404,250 for trial preparation, including reduced solicitor duplication and counsel fees (paragraphs 33-43).

Trial

£285,000 was allowed for trial, comprising £45,000 experts, £75,000 solicitors and £165,000 counsel (paragraphs 44-48).

ADR and Contingency

£37,700 was allowed for ADR and £15,688 for the possible request-for-information application (paragraphs 49-56).

Budgeting Costs

The costs of both original and revised budgeting exercises were costs in the case, not wasted costs (paragraphs 58-60).

6. Decision and Outcome

Winner: The Costs-management determination (Phase figures fixed for both parties) succeeded.

Result: The court fixed the defendants' approved estimated costs by phase, including £85,235 disclosure, £68,400 witness statements, £220,000 experts, £60,000 PTR, £404,250 trial preparation, £285,000 trial, £37,700 ADR and £15,688 contingent costs. Updated budgets were required (paragraphs 57-60). The Not applicable (No substantive winner or loser) did not succeed on this application.

Practical Effect: The defendants could conduct the case using their chosen team, but recoverable phase totals were controlled against the claim's value, complexity and trial length.

Phase Limits

The approved totals were recorded in the judgment table (paragraph 57).

Revised Documents

Both sides had to file budgets matching the determination (paragraph 60).

7. Key Legal Principles and Practice Points

Broad Brush

Budgeting fixes reasonable and proportionate phase totals; it is not advance detailed assessment.

Incurred Costs

The court does not approve incurred sums but may consider and comment on them when assessing future phases.

Team Choice

Parties may choose senior staff and counsel, but the opponent need only bear a proportionate recoverable total.

Practice Implications

For Claimants:
Use phase-by-phase comparisons tied to trial length, issue count and the opponent's own staffing assumptions. Identify duplication without asking the court to fix hourly rates.

For Defendants:
Explain why each senior fee earner, expert and counsel is needed and reconcile the proposal with sunk expenditure and remaining work.

General Practice Points:
Prepare budgets as realistic recovery controls, not maximum spending permissions. Large differences from the opponent's comparable phase require a case-specific explanation.

Legal Disclaimer

This interactive process flow is provided for educational and professional development purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content reflects interpretations and analyses that may not apply to specific circumstances. Contract interpretation depends on specific wording, jurisdiction, and factual context. Always consult qualified legal professionals before making decisions based on this content. SCCSI and its contributors accept no liability for reliance on this material.