Report comment

Maybe the reality is that the costs were just not as reasonable as judge Rowley suggests they were at £99k for a £25k claim, never mind the principle of proportionality with which I wholly disagree .

If costs are reasonable and necessary, they should be paid. It's simply that, I imagine, many of these costs were probably neither necessary nor reasonable. Call me cynical if you like, but they are probably so high simply because a high profile and wealthy celebrity was involved. I imagine the neighbouring 'mole' is not short of a penny either!

Rather a far cry from the sort of neighbour disputes we hate to deal with as they are so financially unrewarding!!

LB