Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » Litigants in person
COST BITES 258: DOES THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE UNSUCCESSFUL DEFENDANTS IS A LITIGANT IN PERSON MEAN THAT THEY SHOULD PAY LESS COSTS? AN ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT

COST BITES 258: DOES THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE UNSUCCESSFUL DEFENDANTS IS A LITIGANT IN PERSON MEAN THAT THEY SHOULD PAY LESS COSTS? AN ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT

July 18, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Litigants in person, Members Content

If there are two unsuccessful defendants to an action and one of them is a litigant in person – should this have any impact on the costs order that costs order the court makes? This was an issue considered by…

COST BITES 100: A LITIGANT IN PERSON CANNOT RECOVER THE COSTS OF A NON-SOLICITOR ENTITY

COST BITES 100: A LITIGANT IN PERSON CANNOT RECOVER THE COSTS OF A NON-SOLICITOR ENTITY

September 5, 2023 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Litigants in person, Members Content

In Reeves v Pickton & Ors [2023] EWHC 2198 (SCCO) Costs Judge Leonard considered whether a litigant in person, who had been assisted by a non-solicitor entity, could recover the costs of that assistance on an inter-partes assessment.  After a…

COST BITES 78: A CASE WHERE A LAWYER WAS CONFINED TO LITIGANT IN PERSON RATES

COST BITES 78: A CASE WHERE A LAWYER WAS CONFINED TO LITIGANT IN PERSON RATES

April 24, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In Wilson v Emmott [2023] EWHC 816 (KB) Mr Justice Saini (sitting with Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker as a costs assessor) rejected a lawyer’s appeal against a decision that the lawyer was only entitled to recover costs on the basis…

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE: THE USE OF A POST OFFICE BOX NUMBER OR ACCOMODATION ADDRESS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES: (ALSO - THE PRICE TAG FOR LITIGANTS IN PERSON)

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE: THE USE OF A POST OFFICE BOX NUMBER OR ACCOMODATION ADDRESS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES: (ALSO – THE PRICE TAG FOR LITIGANTS IN PERSON)

October 7, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

In Smith v Marston Holdings Ltd & Anor [2020] EW Misc 23 (CC) HHJ Paul Matthews made some observations about the correct address for service when applications are issued.  He also noted the issues that can arise when dealing with…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, LATE SERVICE OF NOTICE TO APPEAL AND THE LITIGANT IN PERSON

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, LATE SERVICE OF NOTICE TO APPEAL AND THE LITIGANT IN PERSON

March 27, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Litigants in person, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

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…

LITIGANTS IN PERSON AND THE USE OF COURT TIME: AN EXAMPLE OF THINGS TO COME?

LITIGANTS IN PERSON AND THE USE OF COURT TIME: AN EXAMPLE OF THINGS TO COME?

January 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Applications, Litigants in person, Members Content

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…

LITIGANTS IN PERSON & FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE COULD BE ON THE NAUGHTY STEP

LITIGANTS IN PERSON & FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE COULD BE ON THE NAUGHTY STEP

May 10, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Conduct, Members Content

Just to keep people up to date with the recent posts about the Ministry of Justice and the disclosure of the research in relation to litigants in person. The MOJ has now been reported to the Information Commissioner. A RECAP…

LITIGANTS IN PERSON: THE FULL STORY EMERGES: LITIGANTS IN PERSON COST THE JUSTICE SYSTEM MORE

May 8, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Conduct, Members Content

Last week I commented on Buzzfeed’s piece on research that the MOJ carried out on litigants in person.  After a freedom of information request the MOJ, reluctantly, handed over a six page summary of research it carried out on litigants…

HATS OFF TO BUZZFEED: GOVERNMENT RESEARCH ON LITIGANTS IN PERSON FINALLY "DISCLOSED" (IN A MANNER)

HATS OFF TO BUZZFEED: GOVERNMENT RESEARCH ON LITIGANTS IN PERSON FINALLY “DISCLOSED” (IN A MANNER)

April 30, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Members Content

This weekend I reported on the decision of District Judge Read that expressed profound concern about the fate of litigants of person in a family law case.  Hats off to BuzzFeed which, after a tussle and an appeal to the…

MISTAKES, APPEALS, DENTON AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON: "JUDGES DIFFER, ONE FROM ANOTHER, IN SMALL, HUMAN, WAYS"

MISTAKES, APPEALS, DENTON AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON: “JUDGES DIFFER, ONE FROM ANOTHER, IN SMALL, HUMAN, WAYS”

March 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Litigants in person, Members Content

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)

March 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Case Management, Litigants in person, Members Content

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…

SOME FEEDBACK - WHEN DEFENCE TURNS TO COUNTERCLAIM

SOME FEEDBACK – WHEN DEFENCE TURNS TO COUNTERCLAIM

November 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Applications, Litigants in person, Members Content

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

WHY DISTRICT JUDGES SOMETIMES NEED THE PATIENCE OF SEVERAL SAINTS

September 21, 2017 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Case Management, Litigants in person, Members Content

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…

HIGH COURT WRITES AN OPEN LETTER TO LITIGANTS IN PERSON: STRIKING OUT CAN BE A BENEFIT NOT A BURDEN

HIGH COURT WRITES AN OPEN LETTER TO LITIGANTS IN PERSON: STRIKING OUT CAN BE A BENEFIT NOT A BURDEN

March 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Striking out

There are aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Walker in Chambers -v- Rooney [2017] EWHC 285 (QB) that amount to an open letter from the High Court to litigants in person. Some of the observations are aimed at everyone…

BOMBARDING THE COURT: AN IMPORTANT POSTSCRIPT

December 9, 2016 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil Procedure, Litigants in person, Members Content, Uncategorized

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…

LITIGANTS IN PERSON AND CASE MANAGEMENT: TIMELY SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS – DRAWING FROM THE FAMILY DIVISION

October 3, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized

Recent cases have made it clear that litigants in person do not have any special status during the conduct of litigation. However it is equally clear that, when making case management decisions, the court has to have regard to the…

LITIGANTS IN PERSON INCREASE USE OF RESOURCES NOT SAVE THEM: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

February 10, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In Linder -v- Rawlins [2015] EWCA Civ 61 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of a litigant in person appealing in relation to certain aspects of disclosure in a divorce petition.  What is particularly telling is that part of…

GUIDES FOR LITIGANTS IN PERSON, CLIENTS AND ALL THOSE INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION PROCESS

December 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The Court of Appeal today indicated that “more help” was needed for litigants in person. Here we look at the guidance that exists. LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK OBSERVED TODAY: In  R (Dinjan Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 35.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO “CONDUCT” LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS
  • COST BITES 290: BARRISTERS TAKE CARE: ANOTHER REASON THE DBAS WERE INVALID – FAILURE TO INCLUDE COUNSEL’S FEES IN THE EQUATION…
  • COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED…)
  • ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 2: TRANSFER OF HOUSE TO CIVIL PARTNER SET ASIDE: ARE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID PAYMENT WORTH THE CANDLE?
  • COST BITES 288: IS IT REALLY GOING TO COST £39,967.50 TO HOLD A MEETING BETWEEN LAWYERS? (AND THERE WILL BE TEN OF THEM…)

Top Posts

  • A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO "CONDUCT" LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS
  • BARRISTER REFERRED TO THE BSB BECAUSE OF THE USE OF AI "HALLUCINATED" CASES: IGNORANCE THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING IS NO DEFENCE
  • IT WOULD BE AN "AFFRONT TO JUSTICE" NOT TO SET ASIDE THIS "FINAL" JUDGMENT: THERE IS A LOT HERE THAT EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION PROCESS SHOULD PROBABLY READ
  • COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED...)
  • SOCIAL MEDIA AND CIVIL EVIDENCE: ITS USE IN A TRIAL ABOUT... SCAFFOLDING

Archives

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2023
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2025 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.