Why was I expecting anything at all from the three Judges who knows, but another wee snippet of information that I managed to glean from those 43 pages was this !
Of course, David Rose of the Mail on Sunday already told us this, but every little helps, and we've been granted a bit more insight into the claims that appear to be, in dispute !
11 'accepted', 11 offered a smaller sum, presumably because they are slightly less credible ? And, 36 'rejected' The 11 'accepted' must be pretty high-end accusations or maybe the approx £30,000 average per claim is actually, £16,000 (£14K going to the lawyers ?)
For those wondering about the statute of limitations. Wonder no more because that little problem was taken care of by the tacit understanding that, any 'VULNERABLE CLAIMANT' would be treated favourably in the event of litigation as opposed to an agreed tariff of payments !
The Judges explain that 'unmeritorious' claims will be 'statute barred' presumably because these folk are NOT considered 'vulnerable' and could have spoke up earlier
All very well, but we still don't know WHY those 11 have been 'accepted' but we are told how a claim should be made
Not exactly the TWO LINE summaries which the scutineer's receive is it ?
All told, it looks like Liz Dux was right in her reportage of the Judges views about the scheme and the scrutiny applied
The Judges may well be 'satisfied' but, some claims, we are told, are being investigated by the Police. We are NOT told at what point those 36 claims were 'rejected' OR BY WHOM !
Que Sera Sera ! Ms Dux anticipates a speedy resolve to the issue. Indeed, she may well get her money 'by the summer'. But 'all over', I think not .... !