Chambers News
Costs in Needs Cases: The Rules Have Changed - Are Courts Keeping Up?
02 June 2026In this final bite-size episode, Philip Tait and Mark Ablett, discuss costs in financial remedy needs cases and whether the shift in the rules is translating into real change at the coalface.
The amendment to PD 28A paragraph 4.4, which emphasised the importance of reasonable open negotiation and the consequences of failing to do so, was intended to usher in a new era of accountability. High Court Judges have reinforced that message, and in HO v TL (Costs), Peel J made a direct appeal to practitioners: advise your clients that a failure to negotiate sensibly can attract a costs order, even in a needs case.
But is this trickling down to District Judge level? The honest answer is: inconsistently. The cultural reluctance to make costs orders in needs cases persists, with judges understandably cautious about leaving a party unable to meet basic housing needs. Bu needs are elastic and having to buy a property that costs, say, 5% less than the preferred option is not the same as having needs unmet.
Find out what practical advice Philip has to share in this video.