Report comment

Why is "proportionality" considered so complicated?
Surely the question to be asked is "Would you spend £50 to buy a packet of sugar worth £1.50?"
If the answer is "yes" then the responder pays any costs incurred which are out of proportion to the value of the claim.
There used to be "a principle" that the costs would not exceed one-third of the value of the claim. It's a pity that principle, like so many others, has been thrown away. Now it is not uncommon for the costs to greatly exceed the value of the claim.