piBlawg

the personal injury and clinical negligence blog

A collaboration between Rebmark Legal Solutions and 1 Chancery Lane

Trial by ambush?

In Hayden v Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1121 (QB) Foskett J, albeit with “considerable misgiving”, allowed a Defendant to rely on surveillance footage that had been disclosed so late that it caused the trial date to be vacated. The decision is not so much of interest because of its outcome but for the judge’s more general comments on the issue of when surveillance evidence might properly be served. Facts It was held that from May 2015, when their pain management expert expressed the view that it was possible the Claimant was “grossly exaggerating for the purposes of financial gain”, the Defendant had every reason to commission surveillance evidence. Its failure to do so until January 2016 was unexplained and unreasonable. A series of lengthy but less culpable delays thereafter meant that the edited surveillance was finally served by post on 24 March, Maundy Thursday and received on Tuesday 30 March. The Defendant’s application to rely on it came before Foskett J on 8 April who decided that the Claimant should have time to consider her position and that therefore the trial due to commence in the week beginning 11 April had to be vacated. When it came back before him later that month he considered the events leading to that outcome and decided that the interests of justice required the evidence to be admitted. However, he declined to reserve costs to the trial judge holding that this was the “clearest possible case in which the order should be that the Defendant should bear the costs thrown away by the vacation of the trial date on the indemnity basis”. The Defendant was also ordered to pay the costs of the Claimant’s experts considering the surveillance, again on the indemnity basis Points of General Application  In reaching this decision Foskett J made a number of useful observations on the approach that parties and the court should take to surveillance evidence. Lawyers on both sides would be well advised to take those points on board, particularly Defendant representatives considering when to disclose footage. At paragraph 1 the judge explained that he was giving the Claimant time to consider whether she in fact wanted to oppose the application on the basis that this type of application can backfire on Defendants and represent a bonus to Claimants. It’s easy to see how unconvincing footage, presumably the high water mark of a Defendant’s case, might lend weight to a Claimant’s case. At paragraph 31, in the course of reviewing the authorities, he reiterated that the question of whether or not there is an ambush does not require a sinister motive to be shown but asks only whether the behaviour is otherwise culpable. Thus a Defendant does not have to be shown to be acting in bad faith or sharply – what matters is the effect of the conduct on the Claimant’s ability to deal with the evidence fairly. The judge observed at paragraph 34 that were it necessary to find a deliberate attempt to wrong foot the Claimant then this could only be done fairly in a mini-trial of the solicitor’s conduct. This is the sort of satellite litigation which is to be avoided. Reassuringly for those advising Defendants it is clear from paragraph 36 that his decision is not to be taken as altering the well-recognised position that a Defendant is entitled to wait until a Claimant has nailed his colours to the mast in a witness statement and/or schedule of loss before serving surveillance evidence. Having considered paragraphs 71 and 71 of Judge Collender QC’s decision in Douglas v O’Neill [2011] EWHC 601 (QB) he held that the fact that footage existed and more significantly had been seen by experts was not determinative of the question of whether permission to rely on it should be given. Experts are capable of putting such material out of their minds when giving evidence, just as they know not to reveal matters discussed without prejudice. In this case the judge notes that the Claimant’s solicitors perceived it was inappropriate for the experts to be shown the surveillance footage before permission to rely on it was given but does not really deal with whether they were correct. One can see that if the experts’ knowledge of the footage is, while not determinative, a relevant factor it might be improper to share it with experts and then make the application. Conversely the experts’ opinion might be required to decide whether to make the application. He observed that any inadequacy in the rules dealing with surveillance was a matter for the Civil Procedure Committee but noted that two cases on that issue were heard in the Royal Courts of Justice on the same day. At paragraphs 44 to 46 he questioned whether case management might resolve many such issues. It is the experience of the Senior Master that Claimants often seek an order specifying a date by which surveillance evidence must be served and this is frequently resisted by Defendants. It was suggested that it would be prudent for Claimants to raise the matter with the court as soon as they are in receipt of expert reports which suggest there might be an issue and indeed for the court to raise it of its own motion at the case management stage. Finally, at Paragraph 47, once a Claimant’s case as to the level of disability is clearly articulated and the Defendant has an expert opinion suggesting the claim is “suspect”, an obligation arises actively to obtain surveillance evidence if proportionate. This is not therefore a decision which particularly advances the law but it is a useful insight into how courts will approach applications of this nature.

Daniel v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust & London Ambulance Service: a human rights cautionary tale?

  Daniel v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust  and London Ambulance Service [2016] EWHC 23 (QB) Introduction Edward Bishop QC has successfully defended an NHS trust and the London Ambulance Service against claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 brought by the foster family of a man who died of a heart attack in Wandsworth Prison.  The judgment deals with the legal test for liability, causation and victim status.     The central allegation was that there was culpable delay in the attendance of paramedics caused by nursing error and an insufficiently flexible ambulance triage system.  The judge rejected both allegations on the facts and clarified the law on causation in cases of death in custody from natural causes.  She also dealt with “victim status” under the HRA, ruling that the deceased’s foster mother was entitled to bring a claim but his “foster brother” was not. Background James Best (“JB”) was a prisoner on remand at Her Majesty’s Prison (HMP) Wandsworth when he died from natural causes on 8 September 2011. He suffered a myocardial infarction (a heart attack), as a result of a ruptured plaque in the coronary artery, which caused cardiac arrest and death. He was only 37. He had no previous history of heart disease and it is likely that the plaque was ruptured by over-exertion in the prison gym. The First Defendant (“St George’s”) is a National Health Service (“NHS”) Trust responsible for the provision of primary health care within HMP Wandsworth. Doctors and nurses employed by the First Defendant in the Department of Primary Care at HMP Wandsworth tried unsuccessfully to save JB’s life on the day of his death. The Second Defendant (“the LAS”) is a NHS Trust responsible for the provision of ambulances within the London area. HMP Wandsworth is within its catchment area. On 8 September 2011, an emergency call for an ambulance for JB was made, but he was dead by the time the ambulance arrived. The central allegations were that the nurse who attended on JB in his cell failed to request an ambulance quickly enough, and further that there was unnecessary and unreasonable delay in the dispatch of an ambulance by the LAS. The Claimants had a close relationship with JB which began when the First Claimant fostered JB for 3 years when he was a teenager, between 1988 and 1991. The Second Claimant is the First Claimant’s biological son, and described JB as his foster brother. The Claimants have brought their claim for declarations and damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA 1998”), alleging that the First and Second Defendants, as public authorities, acted in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Violation of Articles 2 and 3 Mrs Justice Lang set out the appropriate legal test to be applied when considering whether or not there had been a breach. She reiterated the guidance: “I remind myself that the test to be applied is whether the Defendants did “all that could reasonably be expected of them to avoid a real and immediate risk to life of which they have or ought to have knowledge” (Osman at [116]). In Rabone, Lord Dyson considered that an “immediate” risk was one which “present and continuing” (at [39]). He added, at [43]:   “The standard required for the performance of the operational duty is one of reasonableness. This brings in “consideration of the circumstances of the case, the ease or difficulty of taking precautions and the resources available”; per Lord Carswell In re Officer L [2007] 1 WLR 2135 , para 21.   The ECtHR and the domestic courts have emphasised that the operational duty must not be interpreted in a way “which imposes an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities” (Osman at [116])”   On causation, and having considered the evidence, the test was: “the legal test of causation is whether there was a failure to take reasonably available measures which could have had a “real prospect of altering the outcome”. Put another way, the Claimants have to establish that JB “lost a substantial chance of avoiding the outcome”.”   The court heard extensive evidence, not just from the actual persons involved in the immediate aftermath, but also from medical experts who gave evidence on the chances of survival following such a heart attack. Careful consideration was given to transcripts of the 999 call-outs, and the exact timing of those calls. The criteria and policy of the ambulance service was scrutinised.   Mrs Justice Lang was emphatic in her dismissal of the claims of breach. She did not consider that the “Claimants have succeeded in establishing, on the balance of probabilities, that, even if [the nurse at the prison] had called an ambulance earlier, or LAS had dispatched an ambulance sooner, that there would have been a “real prospect of altering the outcome” or that JB “lost a substantial chance of avoiding the outcome”.   As for the claims brought under Article 3, the Judge said: “The claim under Article 3 was unarguable, in my view. [the prison nurse] acted promptly, reasonably and professionally and did all she could to save JB’s life. There was no unreasonable delay in calling an ambulance. The LAS handled the emergency call in accordance with their procedures which were required to ensure that a limited resource of emergency vehicles and personnel were allocated fairly within the community according to priority need. ” It certainly did not amount to “inhuman and degrading treatment”.   Victim status   Both Claimants brought claims alleging that they were “indirect victims”. Mrs Justice Lang considered the law on victim status, and set out the relevant test:   “In my judgment, the likely approach of the ECtHR in determining the status of the Claimants in this case would be to consider all the facts and circumstances to assess: ·       1. the nature of the legal/family relationship between the Claimants and JB; ·       2. the nature of the personal ties between the Claimants and JB; ·       3. the extent to which the alleged violations of the Convention (1) affected them personally and (2) caused them to suffer; ·       4. involvement in the proceedings arising out of JB’s death.”   On applying that criteria, she was satisfied that the first Claimant was a indirect victim as she had been JB’s foster mother for three years, leading to a longstanding parent-child relationship. JB had no other family of his own, and shortly before his death referred to himself as the first Claimant’s “third son”. Not only this, but the first Claimant had clearly suffered from acute distress following JB’s demise, and had been extremely active in the aftermath of his death.   However, the second Claimant was found not be an indirect victim. The status of “foster brother” is not recognised in UK domestic law or in ECtHR case law. There can be no question that the second Claimant suffered hugely from the loss of a close friend; but this alone is not a sufficient basis on which to found a claim.   The claims were dismissed.

Stroke Caused By Beauty Facial Case Settles

Claims against negligent beauticians and the like are not altogether uncommon. The injuries tend to be dermatological in nature consequent of some allergic reaction to an untested product. But who would have thought it possible, let alone likely, for someone to suffer a stroke as a result of a beauty facial treatment? Tragically that is what happened to Elizabeth Hughes after her visit to the spa at the Eastwell Manor Hotel. What should have been a weekend treat resulted in a serious stroke that left her disabled for life. Her claim, which otherwise would have been tried in the High Court this week, settled for an undisclosed amount. How did it happen? The medical experts on both sides were agreed that the stroke occurred as a result of a dissection to the carotid artery. The dissection was in all probability caused when beauty cream was massaged onto the sides of her neck by the beauty therapist. The issue was whether she was negligent or had applied an excessive degree of force. Unlike sports injury or deep tissue massages, where there are reported cases of stroke, this was a novel situation. This type of injury had not been encountered previously by beauty therapists. Mrs Hughes who was employed by the NHS as a nurse was left significantly disabled. Her disabilities prevented her from returning to employment in the nursing sector. The case has been watched closely by the beauty industry and the press. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nurse-disabled-stroke-after-allegedly-6798935) Elizabeth Hughes was represented by Edward Bishop QC and Kiril Waite at 1 Chancery Lane, instructed by Ciaran McCabe at Moore Blatch Legal Resolve.

CPR 35.1: When is expert evidence ‘reasonably required’? (1/2)

Expert evidence is often talked of in terms of parties’ ‘rights’, i.e. to a fair trial or for equality of arms. In the field of PI and Clinical Negligence, it is taken for granted that except in the clearest of cases, the Court will admit (often gratefully) expert opinion on condition and prognosis as well as liability and causation. However, two recent decisions in different divisions of the High Court are a reminder that the Court’s powers under Part 35 are framed in terms of the power to restrict rather than permit, the use of experts.   Background   CPR 35.1 ("Duty to restrict expert evidence") provides:   "Expert evidence shall be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings."   The White Book notes (at paragraph 35.1.1) that the underlying objective is to reduce the inappropriate use of expert evidence.   The courts have taken an increasingly strict line on this, particularly following the changes to civil procedure ushered in by LASPO 2012 (the so called ‘Jackson reforms’).  In Andrew Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Limited [2014] EWHC 3590 (QB) for instance, Warby J considered whether it would be appropriate to admit expert evidence:   "CPR 35.1 imposes a duty on the court to restrict expert evidence to that which is reasonably required. I do not, however, read this as imposing a test of absolute necessity. A judgment has to be made in the individual case, and it has to be made before the evidence is heard and evaluated. My conclusion was that evidence which it is credibly said could conclusively determine the single most important issue in the case meets the criterion in the rule."   British Airways Plc v Spencer and (and ors) [2015] EWHC 2477 (Ch)   In British Airways Plc v Spencer and 11 others (present trustees of the British Airways Pension Scheme) [2015] EWHC 2477 (Ch), the Deputy Master refused BA permission to rely on expert evidence. He held that ‘various points raised in the pleadings’ on which BA suggested expert evidence would assist were, in fact, ‘eminently capable of being determined by the judge at trial as issues of fact and law without the assistance of expert evidence...’.  BA appealed.  The appeal succeeded in part. Warren J encouraged courts to consider applications to rely on expert evidence in the following way: Whether, looking at each issue, expert evidence is necessary to resolve it. If it is necessary (not just helpful), it must be admitted. If the evidence is not necessary, whether it would assist the court in resolving the issue. If it would be of assistance, but not necessary, the court could determine the issue without it. Whether (in circumstances where the evidence would be of assistance but not necessary), in the context of the proceedings as a whole, expert evidence on that issue is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings (taking account of factors such as the value of the claim, the likely impact of the judgment, where the costs will fall, and the possible impact on the conduct of the trial).    Although the decision was fact sensitive, the court identified the following points in favour of allowing expert evidence:    The ‘very large’ financial implications of the decision for BA meant that it should be entitled to advance its best case. It would be undesirable to ’tie the hands of’ the trial judge. If the trial judge concluded that expert evidence would not assist, then he could decline to receive that evidence. The fact that BA would bear the costs of the expert evidence whatever happened, and that the trustees would bear no financial risk.    The full judgment is available at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2015/2477.html

Scrutiny of Medical Evidence & Physiotherapy Charges in low-value PI cases

I recently acted for an insurer in a routine low value personal injury case (to which QOCS applied) which had an unusual twist.   The claimant claimed damages for neck injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. He signed the Particulars of Claim which were vague as to the description of his injury, but which made reference to an appended medical report. The medical report was of the lamentably short “tick box” variety and concluded that the claimant had sustained a “soft tissue neck injury which resolved in around five months”. At the time of the examination by the GP expert around three months post-accident, the claimant complained of some ongoing symptoms.   Well, the Claimant’s social media persona begged to differ. The Defendant’s online sleuths obtained evidence that the Claimant actually undertook a half marathon a few days post-accident and an ‘Iron Man’ a few weeks after that. This was at a time when the medical report suggested that the Claimant’s symptoms were most acute (“moderately-severe” – whatever that means!).   The Claimant submitted a Notice to Discontinue.   His solicitors came off the record as acting for him.   The Defendant applied to have the Notice of Discontinuance set aside.   On the day of the listed hearing, the Defendant’s solicitors received a remarkably candid witness statement from the Claimant, who had procured the services of a direct access counsel. This expressed a great deal of regret for what had occurred and made a large number of serious allegations against the claimant firm of personal injury solicitors including: that the firm aggressively pursued the Claimant to encourage him to litigate when he was reluctant; indeed, that the firm “reminded” him that he may have sustained an injury despite his being unaware of it at the time and/or drawing any causal link with the index accident; that despite the Claimant telling the firm that his injury resolved in “about one week” she was pressured into attending physiotherapy sessions; the said physiotherapy sessions were arranged by the solicitors without any reference to any medical opinion; and he was persuaded to sign the Particulars referencing the medical report despite knowing the conclusion of the doctor therein to be incorrect. (This does not explain the complaints of ongoing symptoms however!).   The Claimant settled with the Defendant insurer with a Strike Out on the grounds of Abuse of Process by consent ant the payment of costs, however the case throws into an unpleasantly harsh light the tactics which many who may represent insurers and indeed the insurers themselves have long since suspected are employed by some less scrupulous law firms.   The lesson for such firms is of course obvious, but those for legal professionals representing defendant parties can be distilled thus in cases where the medical evidence appears formulaic (i.e. in the majority of routine Fast Track cases, particularly now costs for the provision of such evidence have been limited by the CPR): defendants should be less prepared to accept the conclusions of medical professionals as face value; claimants ought to me more rigorously cross-examined on the duration and significance of their symptoms; charges for physiotherapy charges should be more stringently scrutinised. These frequently are “evidenced” by invoices made out to the solicitors. Without further evidence of under what mechanism the claimant party is expected to meet these, they are arguably unproven losses. This may raise consumer credit points of course and potentially wider issues in cases where it transpires there is a connection between solicitors and physiotherapy providers. In my experience it is not unusual for the claimant to deny receiving such treatment or as many sessions as claimed for; the chronology also should be more carefully looked into. Perhaps Part 35 Questions should ask when was physiotherapy recommended and by whom? If it was the (medically-unqualified (and often formally legally-unqualified) “solicitors”, can the fact that a subsequent medical report makes reference to this in the “treatment received” section, undermine such a report or seriously be said to pertain upon its conclusion?

Expert evidence in road traffic cases

Is the evidence of an expert in cycling safety reasonably required in a personal injury claim arising out of an accident which the claimant alleges was caused by the highway authority’s breach of duty (in respect of maintenance, layout etc)? At a Case Management conference in the case of Allen v Cornwall Council [2015] EWHC 1461 the District Judge gave the claimant permission to rely on such evidence to deal with allegations of contributory negligence made by the defendant. He refused to grant the defendant permission to rely on its own evidence.  In the case of Liddell v Middleton (7th July 1995, Unreported), the Court of Appeal gave guidance as to the admissibility of expert evidence in road traffic claims. Stuart-Smith L.J. said that in such cases the function of the expert is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria and assistance based upon his special skill and experience not possessed by ordinary laymen to enable the judge to interpret the factual evidence of the marks on the road, the damage, or whatever it may be. What he is not entitled to do is reach conclusions on facts or give his opinion on whether there was a breach of duty. In Liddell the Court of Appeal found the ‘expert’ had overstepped the mark and given evidence which was entirely irrelevant and inadmissible. The defendant in Allen appealed the District Judge’s order and the case was heard by Green J. He would not interfere with what was a case management decision of the district judge. Green J found that the district judge was addressing a threshold issue as to whether the evidence should be admitted for the purpose of case management but, he had made it clear it was without prejudice to any more mature and considered view which a trial judge might take. He had not given the defendant permission to have its own report because it might see the expert evidence of the claimant and decide that it wanted to abandon allegations of contributory negligence altogether. Green J held that the district judge had not seen the expert’s report at the time he made his decision and therefore he was not in a position to assess its content; he took account of the fact his decision would not bind the trial judge. Green J thought that the facts of the case were somewhat unusual (as it was not a case of a collision with a pedestrian or another vehicle but one involving the condition and layout of the highway). He did not rule on the admissibility of the evidence but thought the judge had not acted outside the generous ambit afforded to a judge exercising his case management powers. Green J acknowledged the ‘practical force’ of the defendant’s complaint that the judge should have required the report to be prepared and produced before granting permission. Indeed the defendant’s suggestion that this would have been the appropriate course was commended as ‘sensible’. It is notably the course commended by the Court of Appeal in Casey v Cartwright in the context of low velocity road traffic accident litigation. But Green J did not think the judge had erred in not adopting this approach. This case raises an interesting question as to when exactly the threshold is reached for the granting of permission for expert evidence at the case management stage: when is expert evidence ‘reasonably required’ (CPR 35.1)? In Casey the question was whether, once the judge had seen the expert evidence, the issue itself had a ‘real prospect of success’. Liddell v Middleton and the decision in Allen tend to suggest that at the case management stage the question is no more than whether it is arguable that the evidence is admissible - the final decision rests with the trial judge. The questions the expert was to examine included where a cyclist should be positioned on a carriageway and whether he was cycling too fast or should have dismounted where visibility was poor. Do such questions require expert evidence? If so, why not in cases involving motorcycling, lorry driving and other modes of transport which may be outside the experience of a trial judge? It will be interesting to see what the trial judge decides. In the meantime it is striking that, at the appeal, Green J gave the defendant permission to rely on its own expert evidence before it had seen the evidence of the claimant. Draw what conclusions you will… (Ian Miller represented the defendant on the appeal)

Personal Injury practices safe 'at this stage'

“Will they or won’t they?” has been the question for many personal injury lawyers wondering whether their practices were about to disappear into oblivion with the raising of the small claims limit. The question has now been answered: “not at this stage”. The government clearly thinks that it would be good to raise it. However it does not intend to do so ‘at this stage’ because it might have an adverse effect on victims of RTAs with genuine injuries. It wants to develop safeguards before an increase in the limit is considered. The government has also responded to the consultation on its proposal to set up panels of independent medical experts. It intends to go ahead with this with the intention of having experts who give better advice on whiplash injuries. The view is that only reports from accredited medical experts would be accepted in evidence in whiplash claims. Reports will be in a standardised format and the government intends to stop experts being paid by those who favour a certain outcome. Further work is to be done before a proposal is published. You may or may not have been aware that the transport select committee had recommended reducing the limitation period for road traffic cases involving personal injury from three years. The government has made it clear it does not intend to do so. Such a move would make the law of limitation more complicated and would cause a massive surge in litigation – at a point when the court system is struggling in any event. The government has also suggested measures to challenge fraudulent or exaggerated claims. These include better data collection in order to establish the extent of the problem, prohibiting settlement without a medical report and the sharing of data by insurance companies with claimant solicitors to help claimant lawyers carry out ‘know your client checks’. Whether this will really make any difference is open to doubt – one school of thought is that vehicle technology (dashboard cameras, speed recording devices etc) will only really make a difference.

Failure to file costs budgets: a recent example in practice

Pursuant to CPR 3.12 and 3.13, unless the Court orders otherwise all parties (unless they are litigants in person) in a multi-track case commenced after 1st April 2013 must file and exchange costs budgets. The date for doing so will either be prescribed by the Notice of Proposed Allocation served by the Court pursuant to CPR 23(1) or, in the absence of a specific date, they must be exchanged and filed 7 days before the first CMC. The sanction for not filing a budget is contained in CPR 3.14 and is extraordinarily draconian: "Unless the Court orders otherwise, any party which fails file a budget despite being required to do so will be treated as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees". This sanction grabbed the headlines recently in the Andrew Mitchell MP case (Mitchell v  News Group (2013) EWHC 2355), since his solicitors failed to file a budget on time and Master McCloud applied CPR 3.14 to its full effect (albeit only by analogy since the claim was a defamation action not strictly governed by the new Part 3 regime). She also gave permission of her own motion for the Claimant to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In Maisuria v London Borough of Ealing (Uxbridge CC, 18th September 2013, unreported) the Defendant did not file a costs budget until the day before the first CMC. However, when the Court sent out the CPR 23(1) notice of proposed allocation, the Defendant  completed the attached directions questionnaire indicating that the appropriate track was in dispute. The Defendant's case was that, based upon the existing medical evidence, the time estimate for trial (1 day) and the pleaded claim for special damage, it was a fast track case. The directions questionnaire contained a box stating that parties should file a costs budget in precedent H if the claim was "likely to be allocated to  the multi-track". The Defendant did not think it was likely, or indeed that the evidence supported a claim in excess of £25,000, and therefore elected not to do so. Shortly before the CMC, the Claimant served additional expert evidence indicating that his injury had not recovered in accordance with the original prognosis and was more serious than had been anticipated. In light of this deterioration, the Defendant accepted that the case should now be allocated to the multi-track and filed a Costs Budget on the day before the CMC. The Claimant argued that, by analogy with the Andrew Mitchell MP case, the Defendant should be limited to a costs budget comprising its Court fees, pursuant to CPR 3.14. DDJ Sofaer concluded, however, that the Mitchell case was distinguishable on its facts. Whereas in that case the reasons for not filing a budget related to the solicitors being under pressure of work and experiencing unexpected delays, in this case there had been a genuine jurisdictional dispute as to whether this was a multi-track case at all, and the Defendant had been served with the relevant evidence late in the day. The Court had a discretion built in to CPR 3.14 ('Unless the Court orders otherwise') and it was not necessary for the Defendant to make a separate application for relief from sanction. Accordingly, the Court approved the Defendant's (and Claimant's) budget and did not apply the sanction.