Report comment

Re: Anonymous17 June 2016 11:10 pm

"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 you read the article, it says that costs were claimed at £208,236. This figure was REDUCED BY THE JUDGE to a REASONABLE figure of £99,000. He then applied proportionality to reduce the figure a second time to £35,000.

So your point about the costs not being reasonable is wrong, because the judge expressly found that £99,000 worth of costs were reasonable, but not proportionate.

I don't get why people are so up in arms about proportionality.