Report comment

So, I pretty much interpret the judgement as saying (i) because the claimant relied upon an unreliable expert report and (ii) the schedule of special damages was so poorly prepared by the claimant's lawyer that the claimant couldn't be expected to know what he signed a statement confirming and (iii) the claimant's gross exaggeration of injuries as shown on surveillance: that the claimant should not be penalised at all and the Defendant should not not have any entitlement to costs for successfully proving those points.