Report comment

I hope that future commentators will do the judge the courtesy of reading his judgment. It is careful and thoughtful. It also offers, I think, some useful guidance through the thorny thicket of this jurisprudence.

It has always been possible to see off bogus claims and defences by means of striking them out. But as these applications are usually before any substantive hearing and are short they are a rarity and usually unsuccessful. The judgment points out the problems. The issues in this case could only be sensibly sorted out at trial.

This is the second dishonest claim reported in the last few days. Straws in the wind . . . ?