Report comment

Whatever there may be to be read 'between the lines', it still smacks of bad form to seek costs against the 'winner' when you're the hands down 'loser'. Sometimes it's best to take defeat on the chin and accept the consequences of it - which is something that the SRA seems to be incapable of doing, particularly in those cases where it seems to have adopted a 'witch hunt' mentality. I wonder whether the 'in-house counsel' employed by the solcitors for the SRA sought his/her client's explicit instruction on the point before making the application for costs against the respondent?