Jaqueline Tranter as representative of the Estate of Daren Tranter (deceased) v Franklin Silencers Ltd — 2025

This was a costs judgment only. The Claimant applied for costs after the hearing listed for 15 May 2025 was postponed at the Respondent’s request. The Claimant relied on Rule 74(2)(c) and also said the Respondent had acted unreasonably by delaying its postponement application and failing to progress matters after the case management orders were sent. The application sought £300 plus VAT for thrown-away costs connected with the postponement.

The Tribunal accepted that the Respondent’s reasons for the lateness of the postponement application were inadequate, and noted that if the Respondent needed more time it could have raised that earlier. However, it also found that the Claimant’s 13 May 2025 strike-out email was not clearly framed for a lay respondent, and could reasonably have been understood as suggesting that strike out might be considered at the 15 May hearing. The Tribunal also noted that, by 13 May, the Claimant had not complied with the order to supply medical evidence, so the Claimant was not fully compliant with the 18 December 2024 orders.

Applying Rules 74 and 82, and the compensatory approach to costs reflected in Yerrakalva v Barnsley, the Tribunal concluded that there was fault on both sides and that it would not be in the interests of justice to require the Respondent to pay the claimed costs. It therefore refused the application. The Tribunal recorded that ability to pay was not argued.