4 New Square Eversheds Ward Hadaway Eversheds ordered to pay £2 to Newcastle Airport over negligence claim By Katy Dowell 29 November 2013 12:33 17 December 2015 13:37 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anonymous 29 November 2013 at 13:29 This kind of settlement makes the system look absurd. Reply Link Bingham 29 November 2013 at 16:02 But it’s not a settlement and has nothing to do with the system, just the application of legal principles including that the primary/predominant purpose of an award of damages is to compensate a claimant for loss it has suffered as a result of the defendant’s breach of contract or duty. Reply Link Anonymous 29 November 2013 at 18:30 anon at 1.29 – it only looks absurd to those to thick to understand the law Reply Link Anonymous 29 November 2013 at 22:53 Ward Hadaway and 4 New Square, we salute you. Reply Link Anonymous 30 November 2013 at 15:47 The more interesting question is who pays the costs. Reply Link Anonymous 2 December 2013 at 09:49 Presumably Eversheds as less “pleased to confirm” that the CoA found they breached their duty of care and ordered them to pay damages as a result. The spin of “our failings did not as a matter of fact cause substantive loss in this instance” is hardly excellent PR. Reply Link Anonymous 3 December 2013 at 03:09 Even if you understand the law, the end result of this litigation is absurd. Why was it £2 and not £1 or a peppercorn or the Eversheds partners having to wear sandwich board stating that they screwed up, but not in an expensive way? Reply Link Anonymous 3 December 2013 at 15:54 Anon 6.30pm 29th Nov, It appears absurd to me. I understand the law. Perhaps you ought to give some reasons for your view. Otherwise it is you who appears thick. My view is that it is absurd because such a fee was obviously something that a law firm should check with the client, not simply the convenient (and profiting) point of contact. I presume you also think that the winning party were thick for pursuing the action? Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.