To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
1 thought on “Flaws with new guidance for Precedent H”
This is just an implementation flaw in the redesign from Precedents HA and HB, which contain (inconsistently) boxes to tick if these matters are included/excluded. In this redesigned version this is (sort of) covered off by the “complete as appropriate” phrase. So it’s not hopeless in concept, just confusing. I can live with THOSE flaws (they’ve also abolished the assumptions page for no good reason, which is a great pity because solicitors can now hide behind a minimal explanation). Much more useful is that they’ve fixed the original incomprehensible failure to include incurred and actual costs in the same document, meaning it’s now easy for judges to run an analysis such as that in para 8 of Chief Master Hurst’s judgment in Henry.