'21.Costs are often a matter of rough justice and in this case I am painfully aware that the justice is peculiarly rough whatever I do. I have to bear in mind: (a) the fact that the basic facts gave rise to a claim for a substantial amount of money which was awarded to Mr Gold and has now been determined at over £2 million; (b) that in order to beat the payment into court he needed to make an amendment, which he did albeit at the last minute; (c) the amendment represented an extension, but a relatively small extension, of the facts that were already pleaded; (d) the amendments, or at least one of them (namely Section 14A, and that would have been enough to get him home), were something which the defendants were aware of the possibility of happening, although they had some reason to wonder why it had not been pleaded earlier than it was; (e) that for a significant proportion of the period before the payment in of £1.475 million there was no payment in which would have beaten the un-amended claim, that is up to 31 May 2000 and between 30 August and 2 November 2000; (f) that any other factor that has been raised I have either dismissed or allowed for in the 85%

23.I have reached the conclusion that the justice of the case involves giving Mr Gold a proportion of his costs in respect of the whole of that period, making a significant deduction because it would be simply unfair to the defendants not do to so. I have come to the conclusion that the right figure to award him is 62.5% of his costs and I think the right period to take that up to is Monday probably about 3 or 4 December. From that Monday inclusive Mr Gold will get 85% of his costs. Up to that Monday, from the service of the defence he will get 62.5% of 85% of his costs.'