RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, LATE SERVICE OF NOTICE TO APPEAL AND THE LITIGANT IN PERSON
In London Borough of Hamlets v Al Ahmed [2019] EWHC 749 (QB) Mr Justice Dove set aside an order granting an appellant an extension of time for appealing. The fact that the appellant was a litigant in person was not a…
ANOTHER CIVIL CONTEMPT OF COURT OVERTURNED: BREACHES OF REQUIREMENT FOR A FAIR HEARING MEANT ORDER MUST BE QUASHED
I am starting to lose count of the number of times the Court of Appeal has overturned decisions committing people to prison because of very basic and fundamental failures of procedure. It is as though all the strictures against fair…
LITIGANTS IN PERSON AND THE USE OF COURT TIME: AN EXAMPLE OF THINGS TO COME?
The case of Zaman v Portsmouth City Council [2018] EWHC 3592 (QB) makes interesting reading for anyone concerned about the effect that the increasing number of litigants in person could have on the court system. THE CASE The claimant sought payment…
CIVIL EVIDENCE AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON : THE DANGERS OF A JUDGE ASKING LEADING QUESTIONS
In Global Corporate Ltd v Hale [2018] EWCA Civ 2618 the Court of Appeal emphasised the dangers of a judge asking leading questions of a witness. It is a case that highlights the difficulties of trials involving litigants in person. THE…
MISTAKES, APPEALS, DENTON AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON: “JUDGES DIFFER, ONE FROM ANOTHER, IN SMALL, HUMAN, WAYS”
In EDF Energy Customers Ltd v Re-Energized Ltd [2018] EWHC 652 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) carried out a comprehensive review of the authorities relating to the latitude to be afforded to litigants in person. It…
LITIGANTS IN PERSON: SUBJECT TO THE SAME LAW AS EVERYBODY ELSE (BUT CASE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS MAY BE DIFFERENT)
The judgment in Reynard v Fox [2018] EWHC 443 (Ch) has already been written about in the legal press. Indeed it bristles with procedural issues, I want to concentrate on the issue of the treatment of litigants in person. THE…
ATTENDING A HMCTS REFORM ROADSHOW: “JUSTICE BY SNAPCHAT”?
There have been a series of HMCTS Reform Roadshows throughout the country. These are discussing reforms to courts and tribunals. Discussing “Virtual Hearings”; “Flexible Operating Hours” and “Scheduling and Listing” I attended the Roadshow in Leeds. I made notes. This…
SOME FEEDBACK – WHEN DEFENCE TURNS TO COUNTERCLAIM
Feedback from readers is rare. I received a letter today which the author has given be permission to reproduce. Just a quick note of thanks. I’m an LIP, having been involved in litigation as defendant for the last 3…
WHY DISTRICT JUDGES SOMETIMES NEED THE PATIENCE OF SEVERAL SAINTS
In a recent case Mr Justice Kerr said, of employment judges “Employment Judges sometimes have to have the patience of a saint to do their job and are appointed because they are considered to have it, among other reasons.”* Those…
COURT OF APPEAL: REFUSAL TO ENGAGE WITH AN OPEN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
In Balk -v- Otkrite International Investment [2017] EWCA the Court of Appeal was highly critical of a litigant’s failure to respond to an open offer of settlement of appeal. The failure to engage with an open offer of settlement amounted…
BOMBARDING THE COURT: AN IMPORTANT POSTSCRIPT
There is an important postscript to the judgment of Lady Justice King in Agarwala -v- Agarwala [2016] EWCA Civ 1252. It sets out the dangers of “bombarding” the court with communications and applications. It sets out a course of…
NO SPECIAL RULES FOR LITIGANTS IN PERSON: COSTS DO NOT FOLLOW THE EVENT FOLLOWING UNREASONABLE CONDUCT
Master Mathews faced an unusual scenario in Jones -v- Longley [2015] EWHC 3362 (Ch). This case highlights the fact that litigants in person are not subject to any special rules and are liable to have orders for costs made against…