'36.It seems to me appropriate to make an order for costs in the applicant's favour, but desirable to make an order which, taking account of all the circumstances (1) has regard to the likely financial outcome for the claimant and (2) makes a substantial impact on her by showing that fabrication of documents will be reflected in the costs, particularly in this case in which the unwillingness to negotiate, before costs escalated rapidly and by many times the sum at stake, was inappropriate.

37.I have considered whether I can order that the claimant should recover her costs save that after her costs have been assessed there should be a reduction of a specified sum. When I raised this with counsel they suggested that I might instead make an order giving the claimant a proportion of her costs, an order of a type specifically mentioned under Rule 44.3(6)(a). My view is that Rule 44.3(1) and (2), particularly, paragraphs 44.3(1)(b) and 44.3(2)(b), enable me to take the course which I suggested, which enables me to relate the decision more clearly than would otherwise be the case to the value of the judgment against Refined which is close to the centre of these proceedings, as well as to the costs figures themselves. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that Rule 44.3(6) identifies that seven types of order as included among the orders which the court may make, but does not suggest that the list is exhaustive. My conclusion is that Lupsons should pay Mrs Gil's costs of proceedings, but to be the subject of detailed assessment if not agreed, less, after assessment, the sum of £20,000.'