I'm presuming the trust was more interested in the money than a conviction. Besides, we don't know why 'there is no prospect of anyone being prosecuted'. Perhaps it's a little too far out of my personal knowledge and experience to take me too seriously....or perhaps I'm cynical as far as courts are concerned after seeing a small business be bankrupted by high court legal costs (I might add that the defendant is paying some, but not all, of the judgement and costs awarded to its liquidator and that the total costs were something like eight times the judgement). However, it's not hard to imagine barristers on 1000UKP/hour or more (really!) arguing in court over whether Mr John Smith really was transported at a cost of 78.34 or not. Or, at the very least, arguing over how the total figure was estimated and whose estimate is correct. Besides, it takes forever to get to court...they'd have to go through 'discovery' first - essentially demanding documents from each other. A belligerent opponent can then dump half a ton of details on you so that it costs you a fortune and takes forever to have an expert witness accountant go through them. At the end of all that you're STILL expected to try and find a settlement out of court. I rather get the impression that rejecting one which looks reasonable compared to the judgement means you're much more likely to have to pay your costs.