It’s a refreshingly humble take on making art. I rather like the acknowledgement that making something that popular is hard, and that what the reader wants matters. Tempted to try his books now.

Where? Might be me being dim, but I can’t see where and when it’s on.

Yes. Banger, isn’t it.

Am I right that the empty album is only available… on Spotify? I know you can’t solve all the problems at once, but even from an “all profits go to the cause” perspective why not at least give us a chance to buy and keep the thing.

I’d probably actually listen to it, too.

How’s that working for you? I could see it working in theory if it wasn’t, y’know, a massive inhibitor to a decision of what to do next.

Oh good lord, why would you do such a thing. Why not list all the songs you haven’t learned to play while you’re at it.

You do it very well. I have appreciated it since before I was even a law student.

Yes, I was afraid that was what I was doing! *facepalm* What I had meant to do was continue aloud my ongoing attempts to understand P36 with a sympathetic audience. Of course I missed the fine line between that and being a smug internet lawyer! Apologies and thanks again for the great article :)

On the face of r.36.17 only the claimant is entitled to indemnity costs, aren’t they? But at the level of the Hugh Grant claim, presumably even standard basis costs would have been crippling.

The problem seems to come with 36.17(2) defining ‘advantageous’ in money terms; declarations matter too.

Very clear and interesting — thanks!

One point on Part 36 though. It’s not my (limited) experience that it’s used more by Ds than Cs, as you say, not least because the rules are massively skewed to favour offers by Cs. Maybe that’s a point in public interest litigation more than general civil lit?

That's the ticket. Thanks!