Ms Y Zhang v Greenland (United Kingdom Investment Limited and 1 other — 2023

The respondents sought costs under Rule 76 in relation to two postponements: the Public Preliminary Hearing listed for 23 January 2023 and the Final Hearing due to start on 2 February 2023. The tribunal said it would consider only those postponement-related applications, and not the wider costs issues mentioned by the parties. The application concerning the preliminary hearing sought £11,230; the application concerning the final hearing sought £15,840.

For the Public Preliminary Hearing, the tribunal had postponed the hearing because the claimant was not fit to attend and it would have been unfair to proceed with a strike-out hearing in her absence. The tribunal accepted the medical evidence at face value at the time, noted that the hearing had only been listed on 17 January 2023, and found that the timing of the postponement application was therefore not the claimant's fault. It also found that the claimant, as a litigant in person, had acted promptly, that providing self-translated medical certificates was not unreasonable, and that she was not significantly at fault in notifying the tribunal and respondents about her hospitalisation when she did. No costs order was made.

For the Final Hearing, the tribunal had vacated the hearing because the claimant was unwell and in hospital and apparently unable to engage with her claim shortly before the hearing was due to start, and because the respondents had not received her witness statement. The tribunal held that the claimant's illness and hospitalisation were, by themselves, sufficient reason to postpone the hearing, and that the failure to exchange witness statements made no difference to that decision. It found that the claimant could not have known in advance that she would be hospitalised, that she had notified the tribunal and respondents with reasonable promptness and diligence, and that it would not be fair to award costs against her in those circumstances. The judge stated that no decision was made on the reasonableness of the parties' conduct in relation to witness statements, and that the judgment did not determine other outstanding costs applications.