Report comment

Are people being deliberately obtuse about the issue of costs? Or is it actual ignorance when the Court of Appeal endows a plaintiff who's Pt 36 offer is not beaten "Indemnity costs", when it should be "Standard basis costs".
And what, precisely, is the intent of "fixed costs" if not to limit any basis of costs to "fixed costs"?
Yet another instance of the demonstration that those in control of the Rules by which litigation is conducted do not even understand the simple language that they are purporting to use.
God help you and Lord Dyson who needs to polish up his use of the terminology of the Bases for costs.