Request for reimbursement of hearing fee after case adjourned at the last minute

What happened

Mr B's small claims case was due to be heard in autumn 2013. However, on the day of the hearing, HMCTS told him that the case had to be adjourned because another urgent case had to take precedence. Mr B said that he and the defendant had felt so emotional and stressed by the matter that they decided to settle the case that day. Mr B said that they were rushed before the judge to approve the settlement so they did not have time to discuss fees and expenses.

Mr B complained to HMCTS and asked for a refund of his hearing fee. He received a number of responses all declining to reimburse his hearing fee. HMCTS said that the hearing fee was payable when the matter was listed and that if Mr B had not settled on the day of the hearing, another hearing date would have been set. HMCTS also said that Mr B had not settled his case more than seven days before his hearing and that any court costs should have formed part of his settlement costs with the defendant.

What we found

We did not uphold this complaint. The decision to adjourn Mr B's hearing was a judicial one and not one taken by HMCTS. However, it was HMCTS's role to communicate the judge's decision. We noted that there was no evidence about HMCTS's actions on Mr B's court file and that the original court list had since been destroyed. It was not uncommon for the courts to adjourn cases when emergencies occurred, such as child at risk cases. We also saw no reason to question HMCTS's explanations or actions about the adjournment of Mr B's case.

HMCTS's guidance stated that a hearing fee could be reimbursed if a case was settled at least seven days before the hearing. We understood that as Mr B had not received a hearing, he wanted a refund. However, the reimbursement of costs was aimed at those who did not intend to proceed to a hearing, which clearly did not apply to Mr B, who wanted his hearing. There was no evidence that HMCTS had failed to follow its procedures in adjourning the hearing. We also noted HMCTS's explanation that Mr B could have included his costs as part of the settlement figure with the defendant. For these reasons, we considered HMCTS's decision to refuse to reimburse Mr B's court costs was reasonable.