What a sh$&@t show this has been over 12 long fruitless years.....

What a sh$&@t show this has been over 12 long fruitless years..

Conclusion
95 We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the SICC’s costs orders in relation to the respondents’ post-transfer costs. In its place, we make the following orders as to the costs of S 1:
(a) BCBCS is liable to BR for its post-transfer costs to the following extent. From the claimed figure of $4,947,753.70 (see Costs Judgment at [67]), costs solely attributable to BCBC’s withdrawn claim (which are to be determined in the manner outlined below) are to be deducted. The resulting figure is subject to a 10% discount for the respondents’ lack of particularisation (see Costs Judgment at [67]), and a further 70% discount (see [31] above).
(b) BCBC is liable to BI for its post-transfer costs, in so far as these are solely attributable to BCBC’s withdrawn claim. Because this is a subset of the total costs claimed by BR and BI collectively, and which the SICC considered should be discounted by 10% on account of the lack of particularisation, we consider that the final amount determined to be payable by BCBC to BI should be subject to the same discount of 10%. As to the actual quantum of such costs, we expect the parties should be able to agree on this, but in the unlikely event they are not able to, they are to write to the court, within 14 days of this judgment, to indicate their respective positions (this to be no longer than five pages), to enable us to fix the quantum.
96 We make no order as to the costs of this appeal. While the appellants have prevailed, they have only done so by reason of the new points they have taken on appeal. The usual consequential orders apply.
Sundaresh Menon
Chief Justice
Judith Prakash
Justice of the Court of Appeal
Jonathan Hugh Mance
International Judge