Compensation Bill [HL]

There has been a lot of discussion about fighting things, but the new clause is about the courts being able to determine whether the organisation has taken appropriate steps. It is about being allowed to look at the economics of whether the organisation has put in more protection and have spent money on that, and whether it has taken enough care within the limit of its budget, or the money available. The same would apply to the public coming to visit. Are the courts allowed to take into account that it would have cost a fortune to prevent something by putting up a very expensive barrier, or something like that, or is it an absolute? Are the courts allowed to take into account the economic balance between how much it would cost against a notional occurrence and that the organisation perhaps got it wrong, because something happened that it hoped would not happen?