Report comment

There is a mismatch between the penalty and the costs order. The costs were £145,533 (para 92). All three respondents were struck off. De Vita and Platt were order to pay £143,456 (jointly and severally). Scott was ordered to pay just 1% of the total costs (which, according to the SDT, worked out at £2,077, though I cannot see how 1% of £145,533 can be anything other than £1,455).

Ordering Scott to pay only 1% of the costs suggests that the penalty for her (striking off) was too severe and that the costs order was supposed to give her some compensation for the magnitude of that penalty; but that should not be the aim of a costs order. If her blameworthiness was 1%, it's difficult to see how striking off was the correct penalty.