With regard to the exercise of the judge's discretion and the sum sought, the appeal from refusal to make a wasted costs order was dismissed.Claimant's appeal from the decision of Deputy Judge David Oliver QC on 8 March 2002 to dismiss the claimant's application for a wasted costs order in the sum of ?1200.HELD: (1) This court, had it been trying the matter at first instance, would have found considerable difficulty in being satisfied that wasted costs proceedings were justified. (2) The principles set out in Ridehalgh v Horsefield (1994) WLR 462 should have governed the judge's approach. An early warning of a wasted costs application was clearly something that would have advantages; the master or judge would be on top of the facts and the clients would know who was going to pay. However, there were also disadvantages. (3) This court was reluctant to interfere with the discretion of the judge. Adding to that the court's views on proportionality, the appellant's case ought to be rejected. This was just the type of satellite litigation that should be discouraged at this stage.Appeal dismissed.