Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Would echo the last anon's remarks.

To me the injustice is that if a claimant is found to be FD then D gets standard costs. If D dishonestly defends the claim then C just gets fixed costs.

If D was limited to fixed costs it would not feel quite as unfair.

As it stands D can say basically whatever they want in their Defence and there will be no consequence.

Anon X mentions contempt proceedings below but that is not very practical. At the point where they can realistically be considered C has just won and is very unlikely to want to continue making applications in that vein unless D has acted particularly egregiously or they are vindictive.

In my experience it is actually very hard to get a judge to make any ruling on the truthfulness of D's evidence at that point in any event. Generally judges seem to see it as "you've got what you want (won the claim) now go away, I'm not going to waste my judicial time on deciding whether D has just wasted 2 years of everyone's time lying through their teeth."

All that said, I will get one them one day.

Your details

Cancel