right, it's clear in't it under four rule twenty eight, four, it's not essential for  the disallowance of any cost or interest that er the taxing officer should be satisfied that erm the other party has been prejudiced, in fact that is not a condition precedent to the exercise of his part and disallow interest in this here item, er any prejudice there maybe is merely one factor to be taken into account in other matters and it does seem to me that the fact the court can, can properly and should properly take into account, is, is that erm, it is desirable that  to litigation should erm comply with there obligations, either expressly, express or explicit under the rules of the court to comply with matter such as it should have orders part drawn up and served as appropriate, as i say it seems to me that er the plaintiffs's can be criticized in not erm having perfected the order of mr justice  er before they did so  but er, i have, it seems to me to look at all the relevant pictures in the case, er if it were the case that the plaintiff suffered any prejudice as the result of that claim, clearly that would be a matter which i would have to take into account, but i'm bound to say it doesn't seem to me that the fender of the plaintiffs to perfect the order did in fact cause any prejudice to the plaintiff and indeed if they, the plaintiffs had perfected the order, it seems to me exactly the same course of events as in fact transpired in this case, would actually have occurred and wouldn't make any difference at all, so unless it's a matter of simply of er seeking to punish the plaintiff as a matter of discipline, it seems to me there is a, not really anything in the point that the order was not perfected er when it seems to me it should of been, and i, there stood to see the other er circumstances, now it's quite clear to me having been referred to correspondence, passing between the solicitors that erm although really from a very early stage er the plaintiffs solicitors  referring to mr  a letter of early nineteen ninety one indicating that erm the view was being taken that the likelihood was that erm the plaintiffs would have to get their costs out of the defendants share and interest in the premises and er that would be a matter which could only be dealt with when the  enquiries director by mr justice  had been dealt with.