Free Traffic Legal Advice

@Oldstoat Are we sure that the logic used in that case would apply to this one?

From my (admittedly very brief) reading of the 'Langley' case, part of the issue there was that the judge found Elms had played no part in conducting litigation, and had been merely been subcontracted by DCB Legal (who had handled the case on behalf of VCS) to provide advocacy on the day.

Looking at this thread, it would appear that Elms have been involved on more than a mere advocacy basis - indeed it was a solicitor from Elms who signed the Claim Form issuing proceedings.

Quote from: gogo184 on January 14, 2026, 09:13:31 pm

I fed the judgement to ChatGPT

Please don't use ChatGPT for legal advice - I once asked it how many times the lettter 'r' appears in the word 'strawberry' - its response was '2'.

Quote from: gogo184 on January 14, 2026, 09:13:31 pm

However if someone else turns up apart from Elms, i.e. if Elms subcontract it to someone else then it would be applicable, right?

I imagine it would depend who that person is. If they have a right of audience before that court on their own account, then no. If they don't, then if you see fit you could try to make the argument, if you feel confident to do so.

Rule 27.14(2)(g) states that the court may summarily assess a party’s costs and order them “to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably”. This is in many ways the most significant exception to the no costs rule, because it provides for the court to award more in costs than those amounts proscribed elsewhere in the rule.

The CPR contains little guidance for the court to follow in assessing unreasonableness, save for 27.14(3) which states that a party’s rejection of an offer of settlement “will not of itself constitute unreasonable behaviour”; but the court can take it into account when applying the test.

Given that the special costs rules of the small claims track are arguably its raison d’être, Judges can be reluctant to order costs for unreasonable behaviour, especially when a party is unrepresented, but we believe that there are a number of features that when present together might mean that such an order is attainable and we list a few of these below:

A consistent failure to respond to correspondence and/or telephone calls
A failure to properly set out a case in respect of liability and/or quantum pre-litigation
An unwillingness to discuss the case and narrow issues
Dilatory conduct leading to delay
A claim that is unreasonably made and without merit
Exaggeration of a claim and/or dishonesty
A failure to follow the standard Small Claims track directions
Where any of these features are present in a case, then steps should be taken to place the party on notice that an order for unreasonable conduct will be sought in the event that proceedings are issued.