It may also be that there is substance in what Mr Lofthouse is saying more generally, which is that we changed our case. If that is right and an amendment is required, it might be different. But to leave it as it is doesn't seem to us to be a satisfactory position, for all sorts of fairly obvious reasons. It was that really I was alluding to when I said there might be an alternative use for the hearing on the 21st and 22nd April. If only frankly to concentrate the parties' minds so that the real issues on this, if any, are distilled.