I was amazed to read the letter from John Whiting (see [2005] Gazette, 12 May, 16).

We are told it was expected that judgment would be given for the claimant at the fast-track trial, which had clearly been listed to cover liability and quantum.


If the defendant expected judgment was going to be given for the claimant, why was the issue of liability not compromised at an earlier stage, thus avoiding the need for a hearing on liability at least?


Mr Whiting appears to be surprised at the way in which the summary assessment of costs was dealt with at the end of the day. In my experience this is how the majority of summary assessments are dealt with, and generally it is the paying party who profits from this procedure.


If the defendant in this case was surprised at the amount of costs incurred in pursuing the claim, he should not have been. No doubt costs information from the claimant was supplied at the allocation and listing questionnaire stages, and no doubt also an estimate of costs was supplied before the final hearing.


It appears that the defendant decided to fight this case on liability and quantum in the knowledge that the case was likely to be lost and therefore in the knowledge that costs would have to be paid. Defendants cannot have it both ways. They are of course perfectly entitled to fight issues all the way to trial if they wish, but if they do so they cannot then also complain about having to pay the bill.


Gregory Bee, Harris Cartier, Slough, Berkshire