Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Basically, yes, although usually it won't cover all the actual costs, by some margin.'"
Thanks that clears it up. I was thinking that they didn't have a case at all as if the other side pay the costs they might as well have gone for it. But that makes sense no point being out of pocket when the money could be used for next year.
Would be interested to know what grounds they were going for in the appeal. States the initial appeal was through flawed RFL policy and the second was legally incorrect?