Report comment

The sad thing about this case is that the advice given (or not given) to the client became central to whether the client's opponent paid the full costs. Where is the overriding objective in all this? We lawyers (including the judiciary) obsess about procedure and detail, often ignoring the whole purpose of the litigation exercise. My reading of the article leaves me with the impression that IM would have recovered the £105,000 from the defendant if they had evidence that they had fully advised their own claimant client.
The defendant wins because of something that had no bearing on the real issue (ie were the costs reasonably incurred to further the litigation) and about which they would have known nothing if the principles of lawyer client privilege had not been so trammelled over the past 20 years. Pah!