Report comment

Proportionality as a concept goes against access to justice does it not? If reasonable costs are then arbitrarily slashed thus creating a net debt owed to a claimant's solicitors that erodes any compensation, why bother?

How true. I was prosecuted from a railway company a couple of years ago for non-payment of an Oyster fare (the machine didn't work - honest gov!). I hired a big gun solicitor - a leader in his field on these types of matters - who made all the right moves and who cost me £600 or thereabouts for his expertise (a couple of letters was all it took). On the strength of these letters the rail company withdrew their claim at trial (they were trying to fit me up for a s.5 not a s.17 bylaw offense, otherwise I would have not bothered with a solicitor at all). They announced that it was through lack of evidence and yet the evidence no no different later as it was earlier. Yet I was able to only recover £150 is costs. I still felt like the loser - being unable to recover several hundred quid I could ill afford. I think that we should go back to the winner pays the losers costs and anyone who withdraws their claim late too - before trial - before the defendant forks out for legal advice - should also be made to pay all of the defendants pre-trial costs too.