As we report on Litigation Futures today, the Supreme Court hearing into whether the pre-Jackson CFA regime breached the European Convention on Human Rights starts on Monday. Around half of the Bar, it seems, will be in attendance.
We were the first to report on Lord Neuberger's original ruling last July and to date nobody has worked out quite why he chose to pick this fight - and also why it didn't occur to him when he was Master of the Rolls.
He is now left in an awkward position, it seems to me. If the Supreme Court takes the nuclear option and decides there was a breach, then we could be in for years of litigation and compensation claims against the government. From a public policy perspective, this appears an inconceivable outcome.
And that's before we work out the impact on the considerable number of pre-Jackson cases still going through the system.
But if the court decides there wasn't a breach, then we will be left to wonder why a whole lot of time and money was wasted for nothing.
The hugely anticipated Supreme Court hearing in Coventry v Lawrence will start on Monday with eight interveners lining up to have their say in addition to the parties, and 23 advocates in all. The case will consider whether the recoverability of success fees and after-the-event insurance (ATE) under the Access to Justice Act 1999 infringed article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and/or article 1 of the First Protocol to the convention.