Courts are increasingly being asked to consider whether costs budgeting should apply in high‑value group actions. The recent case of White & Ors v Uber London Ltd & Ors provides useful guidance on the factors the court will consider in any such application. Rachel Luk reviews the decision and explains why the apparent direction of travel in group claims, particularly those which are funded, is that costs management is increasingly likely to be ordered, or agreed without contest.

Although high-value group claims often exceed the £10m threshold above which costs budgeting would not normally apply (Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 3.12(1)(a)–(b)), the court retains discretion to order costs management (CPR 3.12(1)(e)). Given the scale and complexity of these claims, parties frequently contend that without costs management, there is a risk of significant and disproportionate levels of costs or an unfair imbalance of resources between the parties, conferring an advantage on one side.

The courts have already demonstrated a willingness to manage costs robustly in large‑scale litigation, such as in the claim against various car manufacturers relating to the use of prohibited devices to circumvent emissions regulations (the Pan‑NOx litigation). Over the course of multiple Pan-NOx hearings, the court made clear that even litigation of that scale and complexity would not attract a “blank cheque” for recoverable costs. In pursuit of effective costs control, it was prepared to scrutinise and make substantial reductions to each phase of the budgets, irrespective of whether they had been agreed, while criticising “over lawyering” and cost inefficiencies generated by poor coordination between the legal teams involved.

While Pan‑NOx is an example of group litigation at the larger end of the spectrum, the underlying principles are of wider application. From experience, there are few scenarios in which the benefits of costs management would not outweigh the negatives. It would therefore be unsurprising if costs management were increasingly being agreed between the parties (with the support of the court’s discretionary powers).

This may explain why public judgments on contested applications for costs management are relatively rare. However, the recent decision in White & Ors v Uber London Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 2972 (Comm) (Uber litigation) provides useful guidance on the factors the court will consider on any such application.

The defendants made an application to dispense with costs budgeting in the Uber litigation, as the claim forms did not state that the claims had a value of at least £10m. So, on the face of it, the claims did not meet the requirements of CPR 3.2(1)(a) even though the pleadings stated the value to be around £340m.

The claim was brought by around 13,000 London black cab drivers alleging unlawful means conspiracy in connection with the claimants’ claim that Uber’s licence should not have been granted due to Uber’s alleged misrepresentation of its business model.

Principles applied by the court

The court confirmed that:

• The court has discretion to do what it thinks is just and appropriate and in accordance with the court’s overriding objective to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
• There is no presumption for or against requiring costs budgets for claims that exceed the normal £10m threshold. The court’s discretion is wholly unfettered (Sharp v Blank).
• The threshold at which costs budgeting ceases to apply is in part because the higher the value of the claim, the less likely it is that issues of proportionality will be important or even relevant (CIP Properties v Galliford Try).
• The court must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of costs budgeting, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, when deciding whether to exercise its discretion.

Defendants’ submissions

The defendants relied on the following points:

• The high value of the claim was a “very relevant consideration” that could affect the court’s assessment of whether costs management is necessary to ensure that the costs are proportionate to the case as a whole.
• There was no suggestion that they had incurred and were likely to incur disproportionate costs, particularly where they proposed the determination of a preliminary issue.
• The claimants did not require a costs management order to arrange an appropriate after-the-event (ATE) insurance policy, having already secured sufficient adverse costs cover of up to £14m alongside litigation funding (distinguishing Sharp v Blank).
• They had offered to provide updates as to their total expenditure for the forthcoming months.
• Costs budgeting work would add to the costs of the proceedings and divert resources that could otherwise be deployed in relation to the substance of the case.
• It would be difficult to assess the various contingencies required in this case, which would result in an inaccurate cost budget figure.

The court’s decision

A key factor was that the claimants were predominantly private individuals of modest means, each seeking approximately £15,000. In upholding the overriding objective, the court considered that the case must be dealt with proportionately taking into account the nature and complexity of the case, the individual value of claims (and not just the overall value of the claim) and that the parties should be able to participate in the proceedings fully and on an equal footing.

The court placed particular emphasis on the “real advantage of cost budgeting” to the claimants, namely that it would give them visibility of their exposure to adverse costs. The court was conscious of the claimants’ concerns about being sufficiently protected without needing to “over-insure” and about the prohibitive expense of topping up their ATE insurance at a later stage should they need to do so. It also recognised that even if the claimants were to prevail at the preliminary issue trial, there may have been too much eaten into their funding and ATE insurance at that stage, so that it could adversely impact their ability to fight the subsequent proceedings.

Although the court accepted that costs management would increase the administrative burden on both sides and bring with it the expense of preparing costs budgets, it concluded that these disadvantages were outweighed by the benefits of costs visibility at this stage. The court therefore ordered the preparation of budgets covering the period up to the end of the preliminary issue trial.

Key insights

The Uber litigation confirms that while there is no presumption in favour of costs budgeting, the overriding objective remains the court’s primary objective.

As part of that, a significant consideration is the balance of the parties’ respective financial positions, which affects their ability to participate in the proceedings. As we have seen, it is in group actions that, even though the overall size and value of the claim may theoretically make disproportionate costs less likely, additional components of the claims are often at play, such as the interests of the individual parties and their funding positions.

The decision aligns with the Civil Justice Council’s report published on 2 June 2025, which recommends mandatory costs management for funded collective, representative and group actions. Even in other funded claims, the Civil Justice Council believes that funding should be a factor in whether the court orders costs budgeting. It would be unsurprising, especially in funded claims, if costs management were increasingly ordered (or, indeed, agreed without contest). It may also add an extra layer to negotiations with funders and focus minds on settlement even more.

The position in high-value group claims involving privately funded parties on both sides remains uncertain, although proportionality concerns are likely to persist even in those rare cases.