Americhem Europe Ltd v Rakem Ltd  EWHC 1881 (TCC) (13 June 2014)
The Defendant served and filed its costs budget which was compliant in every aspect except that it was signed by the Costs Draftsman. Issues were raised that the Precedent H form had not been signed by a ‘senior legal representative’ and it was argued that this led to the form being a nullity, therefore meaning that the Defendant was treated as having filed a Budget which only comprised of the applicable court fees.
However, Mr. Justice Start-Smith rejected this submission. He found that although the Costs Draftsman was not a ‘senior legal representative’ within the meaning of PD3E, the Budget was not a nullity, rather an ‘irregularity’; it was still a Costs Budget and no parties had been significantly disadvantage by the irregularity. Summit Navigation Ltd v Generali Romania Asigurare  EWHC 398 (Comm) was referred to.
The full judgement can be read here.