It appears the banks still don't know how to save a penny or two – makes one wonder how good their advice is to customers.

In a recent case brought against Barclays, the old adage of 'only bite off what you can chew' was dragged into the commercial courts in the guise of a costs order in Earles v Barclays Bank plc. Though Barclays 'won', the bank only clawed back one pound in four in costs – and this was entirely its own fault. Let's hope other banks learn from this case.

E-disclosure proselytiser Chris Dale drew my attention this morning to a law report in the Times, in which it seems Barclays got stiffed for costs in a case it successfully defended – because it 'failed to disclose material, particularly electronic material, relevant to the primary issue in the case' and 'instructed disproportionately expensive lawyers to represent it'. Judge Simon Brown QC ordered that only 25% of Barclays' costs be paid because of the above naughtiness.

Judge Brown, according to the law report, said that 'this was the type of action between a customer and his bank that had become increasingly prevalent in the mercantile court during the economic downturn and banking credit crisis'.

Which means, if the above paragraphs are read together, that the banks are seeing more cases against them in which, if they don't fancy proper disclosure, and think hiring telephone-number-billing law firms will just smash the opposition, will cost them a fortune just to win.

Doesn't sound like smart business practice to me. Then again, the banks aren't currently poster boys for smart money management, are they?

It's certainly no surprise that Judge Brown said that it 'would have been preferable if costs management had been applied during case management and at the case management conference, following the example set in the pilot scheme at Birmingham District Registry as part of the Review of Costs in Civil Proceedings by Lord Justice Jackson, to control costs before they were spent'.

Yes, indeed it would. In-house lawyers, your lesson is clear, I'd say. And for law firms, some choice advice in one's client's ear wouldn't go amiss if this happens to you…