Oh dear, oh dear. A reader written has written in to upbraid this humble organ on an apparent lapse in editorial standards.

'Dear Sir,


I have just read the article on page 5 of the 15th June issue ('City firm facing wasted costs application'). Would you please be kind enough to instruct the writer of the article as to the precise meaning of the word 'refute'.


'I have noted this egregious error in at least one previous article but could not be bothered to contact you. I wonder if that article was written by the same person.


'It is quite clear that in each case what the writer meant was that someone had 'rejected' an allegation or claim. Quite frankly, I would have thought that this would have been picked up when the article was edited.


'As lawyers we are supposed to understand and use English correctly. I think that the same rule should apply to those who writer [sic] for lawyers. Yours faithfully -'


So who is in the right in the great refute/ reject debate? Our reader, or 'those who writer for lawyers'? Well, the wording in the original article was as follows: 'X strongly refuted the attack, saying it had only brought the litigation after careful consideration of all alternatives'. Can the boffins at the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) resolve the dispute? The on-line entry for refute is as follows: '(verb) 1. prove (a statement or the person advancing it) to be wrong 2. deny (a statement or accusation).' Honours even, then? The OED continues: 'Usage: Strictly speaking, refute means 'prove (a statement) to be wrong', although it is often now used to mean simply 'deny'.' So, Obiter concedes, our correspondent is slightly ahead on points.