In T 1150/13 the appellant's representative requested postponement of the oral proceedings, because he had been unable to identify the person at the appellant's company that was authorised to provide him with instructions on the case. He was making investigations with a view to identifying the authorised person, but anticipated that this would take some time. Thus, in order to give sufficient time to the instructing party to consider and respond to the summons to oral proceedings, the representative requested that the oral proceedings be rescheduled for a later date. In the case in hand the reason lay entirely in the sphere of the appellant and could in the board's view have been alleviated. It therefore did not constitute a serious reason for changing the date of the oral proceedings (Art. 15(2)(b) RPBA 2020.