No win no fee - against Piplings? Can this be accurate ?

The no win part seems to make sense - no win therefore the legal team that takes the risk takes the hit. Although in every probability they will require insurance to underwrite their costs in such an outcome.

However, with regard to costs and with a hint of the perversity that seems to dog this entire issue, what will happen if the Covenant is upheld and thereby the case against Piplings is deemed to be won ?

To whom will the successful legal team present their bill?

To those that pursued the case against Piplings ?

Will those pursuers in turn be reliant upon the judgment being extended to include an award for costs and that they in turn will seek to secure payment from Piplings?

Is such an award for costs likely to be granted in the circumstances that appear here earlier whereby it seems Piplings may have sought arbitration on the matter and when the pursuers declined to paricipate?

Has the risk of winning been properly assessed by the pursuers and the financial consequences properly quantified ? Has sufficient regard been given by them towards an outcome whereby their case is deemed won but without an award of costs and the consequence of having to foot the legal bill themselves.

This would appear to be a gamble that could have significant financial loss for the signatories to the appointment of the legal team.

It would seem unlikely that any insurance policy could be obtained that would provide recompense for both outcomes.

But as I said at the beginning, can this be accurate ?