JG - The general principle in litigation is that the loser pays the winner's costs - a judgment will pretty much always have an order for costs, so nothing needs to be "extended". That said, a winning party will never recover every last penny of their costs - the general rule of thumb is that you'll recover between two thirds and three quarters.

On the subject of CFA's - they do very often also go hand in hand with some form of litigation insurance, and before a solicitor or insurer will go anywhere near a CFA/insurance policy they will need to be pretty confident that the prospects of success are reasonably high -
I think it may be different in personal injury cases where the injured party is almost always on a CFA but in cases of this type, you'll only get a CFA if your chances of winnig are considered reasonably good (that said, it is perfectly possible that teh lawyers get the case analysis worng)

I would also sound a note of caution to anyone posting comments on here about parties refusing to mediate - it may well be true but you are potentially prejudicing that party's position.

And finally (and admiddetly I speak as a property litigation lawyer (but not in any way involved in this case), it seems beyond belief to me that someone would open up a business when the title to their land had the burden of a RC without taking legal advice as to its enforceability and/or making a pre-emptive application to the Lands Tribunal to have it removed/varied if indeed they did think it was obsolete.

The Lands Tribunal may well agree with Piplings and it tends to be easier to have old covenants removed rather than new ones but all of this shoudl have been done before they even considered opening their doors for business.