06-12-2026, 04:10 PM
That would be the best option but Gladstones are pretty incompetent and I think the IQ levels within that company are generally below average. However, if the do not agree, they run the risk of being seen as being unreasonable, especially if they lose the claim and then they are at risk of higher costs being inflicted on them.
It is in their own interest to agree to reschedule the hearing. However, if they don't, you will either have to attend or apply for a contested reschedule which will cost £123 and if/when your claim is successful, you can claim that cost back.
What you definitely do not want to do is leave it to a hearing "on the papers". That is a sure fire way of wasting all the effort put into this so far.
That would be the best outcome, although Gladstones are pretty incompetent and I think the IQ levels within that company are generally below average and they may refuse simply out of inertia. However, if they do not agree, they risk being seen as acting unreasonably, particularly if the claim ultimately fails, in which case the Defendant can seek to recover the application cost as part of a costs argument.
It is plainly in their own interests to agree to a relisting. If they refuse, the Defendant would then have to decide either to attend on the listed date or to make a contested application to adjourn. What should not happen is allowing the matter to proceed as a hearing on the papers, because that would significantly undermine all the work that has gone into defending the claim so far.
It is in their own interest to agree to reschedule the hearing. However, if they don't, you will either have to attend or apply for a contested reschedule which will cost £123 and if/when your claim is successful, you can claim that cost back.
What you definitely do not want to do is leave it to a hearing "on the papers". That is a sure fire way of wasting all the effort put into this so far.
That would be the best outcome, although Gladstones are pretty incompetent and I think the IQ levels within that company are generally below average and they may refuse simply out of inertia. However, if they do not agree, they risk being seen as acting unreasonably, particularly if the claim ultimately fails, in which case the Defendant can seek to recover the application cost as part of a costs argument.
It is plainly in their own interests to agree to a relisting. If they refuse, the Defendant would then have to decide either to attend on the listed date or to make a contested application to adjourn. What should not happen is allowing the matter to proceed as a hearing on the papers, because that would significantly undermine all the work that has gone into defending the claim so far.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
