LATER
25Given my judgment striking out the action, the defendants say that they are entitled to at least some of their costs on the basis that the claimant’s conduct in this litigation has been unreasonable. It is unusual for costs in the small claims track to be awarded in favour of the successful party, aside from court costs, but there is a discretion in the event that the court takes the view that the unsuccessful party has behaved unreasonably. 26Mr Beebe says that Mr Evans has behaved unreasonably for three reasons. First, because he should never have brought this action given that the complaint had been settled. Secondly, by an email from a Mr Short of Taylor Vintners dated 23 July 2020 the defendants made an offer of £10,000 to settle these proceedings. Mr Beebe pointed out that £10,000 is the maximum level of damages that could have been awarded in this track in any event and this was rejected by Mr Evans. Thirdly, I was taken to evidence from Anthony Fletcher of the second defendant. He said that Mr Evans had made visits to the first defendant’s premises which, according to Mr Fletcher, has left employees of the first defendant feeling exposed and vulnerable to his unpredictable behaviour. 27I will take those in order. Although I have reached a clear view that Mr Evans should not have brought or resurrected his old complaint which he had settled, to some degree the defendants have been the author of their own misfortune. That is because the formal draft settlement agreement which was sent by Taylor Vintners on 2 October 2019 created some confusion in Mr Evans’ mind. He came to believe that there would only have been a settlement if he accepted the terms being offered. Had it been made plain that what the defendants were trying to do was not to disturb an agreement which had already been reached but to modify it, and had it been made plain to Mr Evans that he was not obliged to modify the agreement, particularly that he was not obliged to accept confidentiality provisions, then he would not have taken the erroneous view that no binding agreement had been reached. Although wrong, I am not persuaded that the view was unreasonable. I do not accept the first strand of Mr Beebe’s submission that Mr Evans behaved unreasonably. 28Secondly, I turn to the offer of £10,000 made on 23 July 2020. The difficulty the defendants have, as Ms Cookson pointed out, is that there were strings attached to the £10,000 offer. In particular, it required Mr Evans to sign the formal terms provided earlier in order to restrict him as to confidentiality. Mr Evans did not want to be so bound and so he refused to accept that offer. In other words, the defendants’ offer was not to settle the current dispute but an offer of £10,000 provided that Mr Evans amended the terms of the agreement which had already been reached. 29Thirdly, so far as the evidence of Mr Fletcher is concerned, I am unable at this stage to resolve exactly what happened when and who was at fault. 30On balance, I reach the view that I am not able to accept that Mr Evans has behaved unreasonably and that the usual rule as to costs in the small claims track should be applied. The defendants are entitled to their court costs. __________