Have we said who we've appointed to rep us against the IC?
The lawyer/barrister will control this case for us. If they think Rudders or anyone else is a liability for our car they will either push them into the background or coach them prior to giving evidence (probably the first time Rudders will have been part of decent coaching in a long time).
Whilst other may couch this as frustrating the process, I don't view it as that. It's about testing the process at each step, even where precedents may already exist - as one set of questions are answered, it can easily throw up other secondary questions.
To me, what has been front and centre in all of these cases is that all sides have been on the back foot due to lack of precedents and organisations being able to test each and every avenue before coming to their own individual conclusions.