There is a line:
3.5.3 The Examiner may stop the test at any stage if he considers that the applicant's demonstration of skill and/or knowledge requires a complete retest.
So, why are you so down on the poster about expressing he'd like to have been given a chance to halt the test and save some money. Especially as the examiner had clearly made his mind up going into section 2 with the altimeter setting still incorrect, that this was going to be a fail.
The quote is correct Muddy Boots, but with respect I think your interpretation of it is incorrect. In my view, that caveat is there to allow the examiner to abandon a test in which the candidate is obviously a complete numpty - the OP says the rest of his flying was "excellent" so he was not a complete numpty in flying terms. If the OP is going to rely on 3.5.3in his Court action, he might have trouble convincing the Court that the word
may in the referenced sentence actually means
should or
will
The published document also states that an important remit of the test is to assess if any recommended or mandatory further training is required in any aspect of the test prior to the resit. How could the examiner do this if only the 1st 2 parts of the test were flown? In my view, it would be highly unfair to the candidate if 1 or more parts of the test were omitted due to an earlier fail, and the candidate subsequently failed on these omitted sections in a resit.
It appears to me (and hopefully, to the OP's advising solicitors) is that in order to succeed in his Court action, the OP is first going to have to convince the Court that the CAA's standard test procedure (available to the candidate in writing) is unfair in that they assess the whole test profile rather than abandoning the test as soon as a candidate has failed. In my view, this will be a difficult hurdle to overcome given the stated further training assesment remit of the test.
Furthermore, when I did my IR (I've not done the CPL but presume its the same), the CAA examiner told me clearly in the briefing that he would not discuss any of the test sections during the flight. If that was the case for the OP, then he has accepted a verbal contract. That is yet another aspect that may present severe difficulties to him in Court!
Finally, I say again, what has this actually cost the OP in monetary terms? The 2 hours flying in the original test would have been required anyway to get him up to 1500 TT, so no cost incurred there. The CAA (very fairly in my view) gave him a free retest, so no cost incurred there either.