LCRO 124/2017 RG v XP (4 December 2018) [pdf, 250 KB]
...an apparent discrepancy, the contention that the Court was misled is firmly rejected. [56] It is acknowledged that Mr XP’s lawyers properly took the precaution of ensuring the discrepancy was brought to the Court’s notice. Their job was to protect and advance Mr XP’s interests. There was no reason for them to miss an opportunity to do that. Some 14 clients instruct their lawyers to take every point. Perspectives vary, what may seem minor to one person may be of far gre...