Report comment

The lawyers here aren't really the big winners are they? Even if their £72,000 costs are allowed in full doesn't the article make it plain that around £32,000 would go to the ATE and another £20,000 to experts?

The ATE product is clearly problematic in the new "proportionate" regime. The "basket of cases" argument used to work quite well in the past but it is plain it cannot now.

The solicitors are clearly criticised for their instruction of either too many or too expensive experts in running this case. The word proportionate needs to be taken seriously (Assuming you can find experts that are cheap enough to have confidence in).

I'm not saying that this wasn't a disproportionate costs bill (still £20k to cover profit costs and other disbursements as claimed) but it isn't quite the headline story that we began with.