Horizon Claim

[b789]

@mouse, this is classic Gladstones. A clear procedural point was raised and instead of answering it, they tried to deflect into settlement pressure. That is inept and evasive. They have been asked a simple question: do they consent to the hearing being vacated and relisted due to genuine unavailability? Rather than answer it, they have attempted to leverage the situation for payment. That does them no credit and, if they continue to dodge the point, it is exactly the sort of conduct that can later be shown to the court on the issue of unreasonable behaviour and costs.

Send Gladstones this:

Dear Sirs,

Your email does not answer my request for consent to the hearing being vacated and relisted due to genuine unavailability on 20 August 2026.

Instead, you have sought to make a settlement proposal whilst avoiding the actual procedural issue raised. That is noted.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not accept the Claimant’s settlement offer.

I again requests a clear response to the question asked: does the Claimant consent to the hearing being vacated and relisted to the next available date after 20 August 2026?

If no substantive response is received by 4pm Friday 19 June, I will proceed on the basis that the Claimant refuses consent. In that event, I will consider making a formal application and will place this correspondence before the court on the issue of conduct and costs, including the Claimant’s failure to engage reasonably with a genuine and timely request to avoid unnecessary application costs and court time.

Please therefore confirm your client’s position by return.

Yours faithfully,

[full name]
Defendant
[postal address]
[email address]

It puts them on notice and it preserves the paper trail for any later costs argument.