Report this comment to a moderator

Bank Hur

Bank Hur I looked at the law report in The Times yesterday, and was staggered by the amount of firepower (and cost) involved, particularly on the banks' side. Was it really necessary for all the banks to have independent representation on this point of principle? Wasn't there at least some commonality of interest which could have led them to appoint only one or two firms and barristers' teams to represent the banks, rather than each having their own separate teams (or possibly even agreeing to be bound by one test case)? How did the barristers find anything different to say from each other? I may be missing something, but this does not look like a clever piece of case management.

4-Mar-2009

4:23 pm