The Appellant asserted that the costs hearing was procedurally unfair because, up to the day of the hearing, he had only received a soft copy of the hearing bundle, which he had not been able to access. Therefore he did not have enough time to prepare for the hearing, particularly as he was a litigant in person and suffering from a mental illness. The Respondent countered that the hearing had been adjourned twice on the application of the appellant not on the grounds that he could not access documents. Therefore the Tribunal had taken a case management decision to proceed which fell within the generous ambit within which reasonable decision-makers may disagree.

Ellenbogen J broadly agrees with the latter’s submissions after noting that an appellate court can only interfere in a case management decision where a judge misdirected themselves, failed to account for relevant factors or taken irrelevant factors into account. After reviewing the evidence, she concludes that this was not the case here and in particular, the decision did not infringe the principle of equality of arms or the relevant aspect of the overriding objective.