Lynne Truss and Keith Waterhouse among others would no doubt be suitably pleased by Susan Singleton's letter (see [2004] Gazette, 23 September, 14) drawing attention to the aberrant apostrophe in form RF1. I see that in the Legal Update section in the same issue (at page 34), the report of the judgment in West Bromwich Building Society v Wilkinson and another refers to '... a covenant to repay the principle (sic) sum...'


Personal experience over many years has revealed a widespread ignorance, in law firms and elsewhere, of the difference between 'principal' and 'principle', but might one perhaps expect a little better of those who (presumably) proof-read the Gazette?



Dominic Lang, Stallard Solicitors, London