Report comment

Typical of the court of appeal restricting yet again the rights of litigants to be fairly and quite properly compensated, unlike so many other jurisdictions that do care sufficiently about the aggrieved and fully allow for it. What is it that makes the English system THINK/BELIEVE it has the right to reject obviously and undoubtedly more advanced and better thought out/reasoned principles which we aren't even allowed to debate and determine as a society other than judges retaining complete control. The defendant must be breathing a sigh of relief, for of course the claimant has suffered far more than the court of appeal in its incredible wisdom has allowed for and instead restricted. There is a viewpoint that if you repress the masses including the judiciously aggrieved , keep them poor or at least not too much better off, exhausted and frustrated against challenging higher interests, thereby causing them to expend so much valuable irreplaceable time and energy hence cut and dry, they will soon lose their will to challenge and thereby fight any unknown oppressor. An absolutely disgraceful underlying approach in any situation regardless of whether any would doubt its occurred here. When will we be break from these repressive shackles and properly compensate someone for all that misery and loss and setting an actual deterrent for business interests to pull up their socks, improve standards, compete with the world, and so prevent and deal with issues properly in the first place, no doubt where there's a will there often a much easier way that some might confound. Clearly certain interests groups wouldn't wish for it, obviously. Let us have a look at the make up of the judges to see whether there may be any common thread/interest somewhere, wow, indeed wonderful justice system we've achieved after all that's been endured and desired to be achieved in our land.