02-19-2026, 10:15 PM
Hi @Eryobotrya.
Thanks for sharing the order. I no longer have access to FTLA, so I do not know the background. What exactly was the application you made — was it a costs application following discontinuance, or something else?
From the face of the order, the judge has struck out your application and made clear that, even if the signatory of the form was not authorised to conduct litigation, that point alone did not amount to unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g) in the small claims track.
That does not mean the authorisation issue is irrelevant. It means that in a small claims context, the threshold for “unreasonable conduct” is high. Discontinuance, even combined with a potential authorisation defect, will not automatically justify costs.
The fact that a form may have been signed or filed by someone without litigation rights does not automatically render the entire claim void. In principle, the defect can be addressed procedurally. However, as this order demonstrates, in the small claims track the court may take the view that such a defect, even if established, is not enough on its own to amount to unreasonable conduct for the purposes of CPR 27.14(2)(g).
On the information available from the order alone, the judge has simply taken the view that this was not enough to justify a departure from the usual small claims costs position. If you can outline the procedural steps that led to this application, it will be easier to assess whether the “punt” was realistically winnable or always going to be an uphill argument in small claims.
Thanks for sharing the order. I no longer have access to FTLA, so I do not know the background. What exactly was the application you made — was it a costs application following discontinuance, or something else?
From the face of the order, the judge has struck out your application and made clear that, even if the signatory of the form was not authorised to conduct litigation, that point alone did not amount to unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g) in the small claims track.
That does not mean the authorisation issue is irrelevant. It means that in a small claims context, the threshold for “unreasonable conduct” is high. Discontinuance, even combined with a potential authorisation defect, will not automatically justify costs.
The fact that a form may have been signed or filed by someone without litigation rights does not automatically render the entire claim void. In principle, the defect can be addressed procedurally. However, as this order demonstrates, in the small claims track the court may take the view that such a defect, even if established, is not enough on its own to amount to unreasonable conduct for the purposes of CPR 27.14(2)(g).
On the information available from the order alone, the judge has simply taken the view that this was not enough to justify a departure from the usual small claims costs position. If you can outline the procedural steps that led to this application, it will be easier to assess whether the “punt” was realistically winnable or always going to be an uphill argument in small claims.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
