[QUOTE]BUT - why did the examiner allow the whole test to be completed, when at the first available moment in section II the opportunity was available to mitigate to partial was missed? I think this is where the CAA said fair do's.
There is, however, a worrying trend of '...examiner is always right, pipsqueak' coming out in this thread. If the examiner isn't man/woman enough to accept criticism (and then, hopefully, shoot it down in flames with their superior knowledge), should they be examiners?/QUOTE]
It's a fair point but I think Wirbelsturm has clarified the likely reason for failure of the test in the examiners mind - not checking the correct sub-scale for the whole of the flight. And the trend in the answers on this thread I would agree supports the examiner in his decision but not to the extremes of "the examiner is always right." Clearly the concern for many is the attitude and false sense of entitlement displayed by the OP and his misguided decision to pursue the CAA through the courts.
The examiner most likely decided that in light of the OP's self claimed "excellent flying" there was value in allowing him to complete the test, probably in the hope that the altimetry error would be (very belatedly) spotted at some point. As a result the CAA have agreed a free re-test, but that does not mean the examiner was incorrect to allow the test to be flown to completion.
As he hasn't received the response he was probably looking for I doubt cookiemonster is still reading this thread but comments like "I never back down from a fight, even in the pub" and "a little thing like mis-setting the QNH" do him no favours. I'm fairly certain anyone involved in selection for any type of commercial flying enterprise will agree!