Report comment

Remind me, was it the government or the judges who decided that 'post-Jackson proportionality' meant that costs both reasonably AND necessarily incurred would be disallowed if considered to be 'disproportionate' (whatever that arbitrary and subjective word means). Oh yes, that's right, it was the judges. A modest increase in the already outrageous fees is nothing compared to the blight to be visited on genuine claimants by this product of the bench's latest eureka moment.