Report comment

"Any adverse costs order against the SRA would leave the profession footing the bill for the prosecution." No, an adverse costs order would leave the SRA (ie, the profession, through practising certificate fees) footing the bill for some or all of Leigh Day's costs. The profession has already footed the bill for the costs of bringing the prosecution.

The question is whether the SDT will order Leigh Day to meet the SRA's costs or whether it will order the SRA to meet Leigh Day's costs. Leigh Day's insurers are going to want to get a costs order against the SRA (which is very difficult to achieve, provided the prosecution was properly brought), so the costs issue is likely to be very hard fought. The outcome on costs will no doubt affect whether the SRA tries to appeal the dismissal of the allegations.

"A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said that it was 'disappointed' the tribunal had not agreed with the concerns it complained about." That is surely a comment which Leigh Day can deploy when costs are decided. It shows that this prosecution was very much about what the MoD wanted. If the MoD was that bothered, it could have brought the prosecution itself, rather than expecting the profession to spend millions of pounds on a prosecution which failed.

The SRA must be aghast at the outcome and may yet regret its decision to pursue the prosecution, because it could lead to appellate decisions about costs and the standard of proof which it does not like. It made the mistake of prosecuting a firm which actually put up a proper fight.