Report comment

This sniping and counter sniping is absolute madness.

I am unsure what the answer is however, but take us back pre Woolf.

Can we honestly say that costs were in the main not proportionate to the issues then?

And can we honestly say that cases that had merits weren't settled quickly to avoid costs by insurers?

And can we honestly say that if pushed to the end court doors, costs were in the main disputed between the parties?

Without Prejudice Save As To Costs Offers mainly followed Part 36 anyway. Costs Officers / Judges could always see opportunistic manoeuvring. Shortfalls on costs always came out of damages anyway and if not then the question always arose (in respect of Conduct Rules and the final costs decision/s), why such allow level case was brought anyway (that meant the potential loss of a claimants images to an extent of less than 20%).