Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester explains that the ruling turned not simply on defeat or failed allegations, but on how the litigation was conducted.
The claims were exceptionally broad and speculative; unreliable material remained central, while unpleaded, unsupported or abandoned allegations persisted as evidence developed. The claimants were ordered to pay £9.54m on account pending detailed assessment.
Ahmed says litigants should keep pleadings proportionate, review evidence at key stages and expressly withdraw allegations no longer pursued. Courts may tailor indemnity orders by time, issue or proportion, but interconnected misconduct can justify an order covering the whole case. Litigation strategy, he warns, must remain responsive.
