I am hesitant to interrupt the noble Lord, but since he is coming on to deal with Richard III, and I was asked a question about it, I now have a better answer than the one I gave earlier. He may be able to comment on my answer, so I shall give him an opportunity that he might not otherwise have had. The position is that in the Richard III case the claimant—a shell company—got an absolute protective costs order as the company had no assets, so no costs at all were payable when the claimant lost the case.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Faulks
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 30 July 2014.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
755 c1614 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2014-08-01 15:44:15 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-07-30/14073047000044
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-07-30/14073047000044
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-07-30/14073047000044