Free Traffic Legal Advice

Respond to that with the following:

Quote

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Case No. [Claim Number] – Request for Costs Consideration Following Discontinuance

Thank you for your response dated [insert date], advising that a formal N244 application is required to seek costs.

I write to respectfully clarify that I am not seeking to re-open the case or apply for any further directions but am instead requesting the court to exercise its discretion to award modest costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g), due to the claimant’s unreasonable conduct in failing to notify me of the discontinuance.

It is my understanding that following a late discontinuance, the court retains jurisdiction to consider costs under CPR 38.6 and that such requests can, and often are, considered on the papers without the need for a formal N244 application—particularly where no further hearing is necessary and the costs sought are proportionate.

In this case, the claimant discontinued on 11th February 2025 but failed to inform me. I only discovered this upon proactively contacting the court on 5th March 2025. I respectfully maintain that this failure to notify caused unnecessary stress, wasted effort, and inconvenience, and therefore constitutes unreasonable behaviour under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

Given the circumstances and the modest nature of the costs requested, I would be grateful if the court could confirm whether the request may be placed before a District Judge for consideration under the court's general discretion, without the need for a fee-bearing application.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

Is there only one page?

This is good. You must attend the short hearing where the judge will decide whether the claimant has acted unreasonable (they have) and will award costs.

Whilst we don't need to see anything that is obviously generic in a court order, you should show everything else, even is a single sentence has been printed on another page. In this case, Page 4 would be relevant and should be shown.

Please confirm that a date and time for the hearing has been allocated and that you can attend. If the attendance at this hearing involves more cost, you can ask for that to be paid too. You are at least entitled to loss of earnings of up to £95 and your transport and parking costs. So ask for 40p/mile round trip (or whatever the going HMRC rate for mileage is these days) plus parking fees or keep receipts for bus, train, taxi etc.

Have a look at this short video. Nothing to be worried about and I doubt the claimant will even have representative there:

https://youtu.be/n93eoaxhzpU?feature=shared

Typical of a firm of incompetent wannabe lawyers to respond like this. This type of correspondence from DCB Legal is a tactical attempt to dissuade you from pursuing your costs claim—a common approach, especially when they're aware their conduct may be scrutinised.

DCB Legal’s reliance on the general bar against costs in small claims is incomplete and misleading. They have omitted the critical exception under CPR 27.14(2)(g), which states:

"(g) a party has behaved unreasonably..."

You have already asserted (and the court has agreed to hear) that the Claimant’s failure to notify you of the discontinuance amounts to unreasonable behaviour.

Filing an N279 Notice of Discontinuance (NoD) does not equate to service. DCB Legal claims the NoD was both filed and served on 11 February 2025.

However, if you did not receive the NoD at the time, and only learned of the discontinuance by contacting the court yourself, then service was not effected.

Under CPR 6.3 and 6.20, serving a document means ensuring it actually reaches the party. The mere act of filing does not constitute service.

They must prove proper service (e.g. with a certificate of service or proof of postage), not merely assert it.

Their threat that you could be liable for their costs is hollow. The letter says “we will seek an Order from the Court that you will be liable for the cost of doing so.” In reality, you are not liable for the Claimant’s costs of opposing your request unless your behaviour was itself unreasonable, which it clearly isn’t. You are simply asking the court to exercise its discretion—a recognised and valid action.

This veiled threat is an intimidation tactic. The court is unlikely to entertain such a costs order against a litigant-in-person for pursuing a legitimate, scheduled costs-only hearing.

You should absolutely not withdraw your costs request. The court has already found there is a case worth considering, and that a hearing is justified.

Is DCB Legal’s letter truly “without prejudice”? No, not really. Their letter:

• Does not contain any offer to settle or concession.
• Is mainly a statement of position and a veiled attempt to persuade you to withdraw your costs application.

As such, it's arguably not covered by the without prejudice rule at all and may be "open correspondence" despite the heading. Courts look at substance over form, and if the contents are not truly part of settlement negotiations, the “without prejudice” label is ineffective.

The "without prejudice" rule protects genuine attempts to settle a dispute from being disclosed to the court. If a communication is truly “without prejudice,” it cannot be shown to the judge as evidence of liability, admissions, or concessions. It applies only when there is a genuine dispute and the party is making an offer or seeking to settle.

Their letter does not contain any offer to settle or concession. It is simply a statement of position and a veiled attempt to persuade you to withdraw your costs application. As such, it's arguably not covered by the without prejudice rule at all and may be "open correspondence" despite the heading. If the contents are not truly part of settlement negotiations, the “without prejudice” label is ineffective.

So, I suggest you respond to DCB Legal with the following:

Quote

Subject: Re: [Claim Number] – Proposed Costs Settlement

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter dated 14 May 2025, which I note is marked “without prejudice.”

In the interests of saving court time and assisting the overriding objective, I am prepared to accept a payment of £104.50 in full and final settlement of my costs application. If the Claimant agrees to this offer and payment is made promptly, I will notify the court and seek to vacate the hearing listed for 2nd September 2025.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not accept your position that the Claimant has acted reasonably. The Claimant failed to serve the Notice of Discontinuance on me, and I only became aware of the discontinuance after contacting the court myself several weeks later. That omission has led to unnecessary time and effort on my part and is, in my view, unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

I would also point out that the use of the “without prejudice” label is inappropriate in this context, as your letter does not contain any offer or attempt to settle the matter. Rather, it is a statement of position accompanied by a threat of costs.

Courts have held that “mere statements of position” or refusals to settle do not attract without prejudice protection. In Unilever plc v The Procter & Gamble Co [2000] 1 WLR 2436, the Court of Appeal clarified that it is the substance—not the label—that determines whether a communication is protected.

Accordingly, I reserve the right to place your letter before the court as evidence of further unreasonable conduct by the Claimant.

This offer is open for 7 days, after which I will proceed to the hearing and seek the full amount, together with any additional reasonable expenses incurred in attending.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
[Your Address / Email if applicable]