Report comment

In some ways an odd result.

The difficulty in really considering this is that it is not know what proportion of the costs dealt with the successful claimants. The CPR promote the idea of a percentage order but this may well have been appropriate for an issue based order but that may have really hit the claimants.

My suspicion is that the lack of ATE prompted no order as to costs so that the claimants were protected. That said, the costs awarded to each party may well have been offset to achieve the same result.

But just a quick calculation - if the costs for both sides were (as thought) £2m that equates to around £2,386 per claimant. Counsels' fees would have been substantial so it may well be that profit costs net of VAT would have been in the region of £1,700. Given that this figure is the costs paid by both sides it is not so disproportionate after all.

Caveat - I have no idea of the true value of the costs so the above is just conjecture. Not really a gravy boat when taken individually.