In Richardson Roofing Co Ltd (Claimant) v Ballast Plc (Dissolved) (Defendant) & Compco Holdings Plc (Third Party) & The Colman Partnership (Fourth Party) - Lawtel 20.8.08 the TCC had to determine the effect of the words "costs incurred and thrown away by the adjournment of the trial" in a consent order. It held that when making a detailed assessment of costs, the costs judge should decide whether costs incurred in preparing for and attending a hearing that subsequently had been adjourned were recoverable under a consent order as costs incurred and thrown away by that adjournment. The words "costs incurred and thrown away by the adjournment of the trial" had to be construed in the light of what had been reasonably contemplated as at the date of the consent order. It was a matter for the costs judge to decide on better evidence than was available to the instant court. It was also for the costs judge, in making his detailed assessment, to consider whether any of the documents prepared for that preliminary issues trial would have any value in renewed or revived proceedings that might have taken place after the date of the consent order. The costs of the instant application were also to be costs in the assessment. That assessment was to be made on the basis of CPR r.47.18(2).