(1) The court may not make an order for budgeted costs unless —
(a) the court satisfies itself that each party fully understands the consequences of the order that is being sought as to —
(i) the party's liability for costs to the party's own legal practitioner, whether the party obtains an order for costs against any other party or not,
(ii) the party's liability to pay costs in the budgeted sum to the other party if that other party obtains an order for costs against the party, and
(iii) what the party's liability might be under paragraphs (i) and (ii) if rule 65.5 applied;
(b) the consent under subparagraph(c) is in a separate document which —
(i) deals only with the question of budgeted costs,
(ii) gives an estimate of the total costs of the proceedings as between the legal practitioner and the client,
(iii) is signed by the party in person,
(iv) states the legal practitioner's estimate of what the prescribed costs appropriate to the proceedings would be, and
(v) sets out the basis of that estimate including the amount of any hourly charge;
(c) there has been filed a document recording the express consent of the party in person to the application and to any order made as a consequence of the application; and
(d) the party seeking the order is present in person when the application is made except where —
(i) that party is a body corporate, or
(ii) for some exceptional reason this is impracticable.
(2) The written consent of the client must not be disclosed to the other party.
(3) This rule also applies to any other party personally who consents to or does not oppose an order for a costs budget.