Andrew Hindley v Tradesun Limited — 2025

The Tribunal refused the respondent's application to postpone the 11 July 2025 hearing. It noted that the parties had sufficient notice of the hearing, that further delay was not appropriate or in the interests of justice, and that the respondent's written extension application and draft response could be considered.

The Tribunal allowed the respondent's application for an extension of time to present its response. Although the delay was described as significant and serious and the explanation about the accountant carried little weight, the Tribunal found that the draft response raised disputed facts and was not devoid of merit.

The Tribunal concluded that the balance of prejudice favoured allowing the extension because refusing it would prevent the respondent from defending the claim, while the claimant's prejudice was principally further delay and the need to prove his case. No judgment had been issued under rule 22, so no set-aside order was required.