Report comment

Good on this judge, but all I would say is that he has helped in this one case. What is really needed is an analysis of how and why this case and ones like it get so out of hand and what can and should be done about that. After all if the parties' respective solicitors had 'read the riot act' to their clients they would probably have been the subject of a complaint to SRA/SDT.

First, I think there are types of case where the parties are determined not to settle and matrimonial (and partnership) actions are just two. There is an emotional element way beyond the actual issues.

Two, there are types of solicitors who seem to revel in the volume of paperwork they generate and the amount of work they can charge to a file, possibly to satisfy someone looking over their shoulder to check on monthly billings.

There IT has made it possible to generate vast quantities of paperwork. Another example I find of this is in commercial leases. The first ones of these I saw in the 1970s were c 4 pages long. The last one in the 1990s was 60 pages for a one room shop in a precinct!

I suggest that at an early stage a judge looks at each case and dictates the amount of paperwork he is prepared to look at and specifies a limit on the costs each side can recover at all from anyone, but that that amount be recoverable anyway. In other words the less time you spend on a case the more you get paid. E G in a case such as this each party be limited to £100,000. Then if it takes 100 hours you are on £1,000/hour; 1,000 hours and it is down to £100/hour. The present system rewards prolixity whereas brevity should be the watchword.

And finally no on has mentioned the real loser in this, the poor boy whose interests the parties were purporting to protect, but who now has an inheritance of over £1m LESS to look forward to. How ironic is that?