We consider, certainly in relation to the vast majority of points put forward, they are bad and what appears to us to have happened is where, for example, their very lengthy defence and counterclaim which runs to a large amount of material itself, they have said your claim is wrong for this that and the other reason and we have gone back and replied and said no, no it is not, look at this. They have then said, you can't rely on this particular point and we are concerned that what's happening here is in a situation where you will recall that this respondent, even though it had a report from Hill granting a substantial extension of time, had granted only 55 days and then when we get the pleadings says, "There is another 100 days come forward", is trying artificially to restrict the true ambit of this because this is a case where throughout it has had professional advisers looking at all these matters, looking at this long delay case and simply to assert, "We can't deal with anything unless you have set it out in the statement of claim", we say is unrealistic.