Report comment

So glad I have retired! Precedent H was bad enough (and I agree with anon@1.49pm). All that is really relevant is that in the context of possible settlement it is very useful to have some idea of the Claimant's expected costs, and what they are likely to be at various points in the future - so the Defendant can weigh the total economic consequences of making an offer. The Claimant doesn't really need to know the Defendant's likely costs (as he chose to sue in the first place) although similar limited information could be provided. The straitjacket of Precedent H is too rigid and too divorced from reality. It also takes no account of more complex litigation which is sui generis, where estimates can be little more than a finger in the air, as there is no worthwhile comparison with previous cases.

A good idea in principle has been complicated to the point when all it does is increase costs.