• "The claim was essentially speculative and opportunistic. The litigation has been gargantuan in scope... but it was based on no sound foundation in fact or in law and it has met with a resounding, indeed catastrophic, defeat."
• "Mr Wempen was a man long on assertion and confidence, but short on analysis and understanding. He pursued this litigation as if it was an act of war."
• "The quantum of the claim was also grossly exaggerated. It was put at US$1.65 billion, when on my findings it was at the very best only $3.3 million."
• "All these spurious claims were pursued relentlessly to the bitter end."
• "I have been spared sight of much of the 5,000 pages of inter solicitor correspondence. It is apparent to me, however, from what I have seen that some of the correspondence from Clifford Chance has been voluminous and interminable, and in some circumstances highly aggressive and in others unacceptable in content."

A judge administering a spanking to Clifford Chance yesterday. How it might have looked.

CC's clients have already paid considerable costs to the defendants, and further indemnity costs were also awarded. But it's by no means clear as whether these will actually be paid. The judgment notes that the Wempens' action was funded by some third parties and "in the case of one of them its continued existence is in some doubt". It is, as an American would explain, a clusterf*ck.

Still, Clifford Chance has presumably done quite well out of it. And Clarke LJ notes that the firm's clients "were perfectly content with the belligerent tone, volume, content and repetition of the correspondence". And that the partner in charge accepted that correspondence "on occasion completely overstepped the mark". So that's OK then.

A spokesman for CC said, "our clients believed strongly in the merits of their claims, which were robustly contested on all sides. It is always regrettable when a client loses a case".