We have spent years discussing judicial reforms: more judges, simpler procedures, mediation and arbitration. All matter. But a basic incentive remains ignored. A person who makes another litigate without reason seldom bears the reasonable cost of doing so.

I graduated in 2016, returned to Pakistan and practised for two years before leaving for my Bar in the UK. Costs caught my attention during the civil litigation course. In England and Wales, they were no postscript. They shaped pleading, conduct and settlement.

The contrast was stark. In Pakistan, I had seen weak claims, untenable defences, repeated adjournments and unnecessary applications pursued with little fear of reimbursing the person forced to answer them. At the Bar, unreasonable conduct carried a financial consequence.

Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules was especially striking. A formal offer remains hidden from the trial judge until the merits are decided. If a claimant rejects a defendant's offer and fails to do better at trial, costs may follow despite a technical victory. The rule asks not only who won, but when continuing ceased to be reasonable.

After returning, I began seeking costs when a valid claim succeeded, a baseless case was dismissed or proceedings were needlessly prolonged. A decade into practice, the familiar response remains: "Counsel, the case has been decided in your favour. You should be satisfied. Forget about costs."

The response is usually well intentioned. Thank God your client is out of court, it suggests. What more could one want? But relief at escaping injustice is not a remedy for........

© The Express Tribune