A common sense decision on an opportunistic argument raise on behalf of the Defendant's insurers - another speculative point raised of a similar nature to objections made in Points of Dispute received by us this week, in which the Defendants are attempting to avoid responsibility for costs on the basis that -

1. The Claimant was described on the N252 as "Rob" when his full name was Robert, which the Defendant says renders the Bill inaccurate (notwithstanding the fact that all of the Court Orders named him as "Rob")

2. The fact that the Claimant was a 54-year-old record producer which the Defendant said rendered him more likely than the average client to have BTE insurance.

One wonders whether Defendant insurers are really aware that they are paying for such poor quality arguments to be raised.