Do Litigants in Person receive special treatment from the courts in England and Wales?
It’s widely believed that Litigants in Person benefit from special treatment from the courts. However, judges have made it abundantly clear that Litigants in Person (known as LiPs) are expected to play by the same rules as their legally represented counterparts. Let’s take a look at some cases that support this point, sometimes with a bit of judicial side-eye.
Barton v Wright Hassall LLP – Emailing Isn’t Always Believing
Mr. Barton, a LiP, thought he could serve his claim form via email without checking whether the defendant’s solicitors would accept it that way. Unfortunately for the Claimant, the Court was not feeling particularly indulgent and ruled against him. As the judgment put it, unless the rules are “particularly inaccessible or obscure” (spoiler: they aren’t), a LiP is expected to follow them like everybody else. Consider this a polite nudge from the judiciary: “Read the rules before you hit send.”
Reynard v Fox – Apples Are Not Oranges
Mr. Reynard, another LiP, attempted to sue his trustee in bankruptcy for breach of contract and negligence. However, his claim was procedurally flawed (He didn’t follow the correct instructions), and the court was in no mood to bend the rules. The judge dismissed his case with a particularly poetic observation: “The claimant could not claim that an apple is an orange, on the grounds that you do not know the difference because you are a litigant in person.” In other words, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Jones v Longley – The Art of Pleading Poorly
In this case, the LiP submitted a rather messy counterclaim. The court wasn’t impressed and held that allowing substandard pleadings would undermine fairness. The message? Just because you don’t have a lawyer doesn’t mean you get to wing it. If represented, parties must submit coherent, structured legal arguments; so must a Litigant in Person.
EDF Energy Customers Ltd v Re-Energized Ltd – No Free Passes
Here, the court acknowledged that being lenient to LiPs isn’t just a burden on the court, it also makes life harder for the represented party. The judgment put it bluntly: “Every indulgence given to a litigant in person imposes an extra burden on the represented party and the court system.” In short, special treatment for LiPs is a slippery slope that could lead to chaos.
Tinkler v Elliott – A Late Realisation is Still Late
Mr. Tinkler, another hopeful LiP, failed to take the necessary procedural steps for several months and later argued that he simply “did not understand” the available options. The court was not buying it. As the judgment stated: “The fact that a litigant in person ‘did not really understand’ or ‘did not appreciate’ the procedural courses open to him for months did not entitle him to extra indulgence.”
So, What’s the Verdict?
While judges may (occasionally) show patience towards LiPs that a lawyer might not get, the bottom line is clear: ignorance of the rules does not grant immunity from them. The court expects everyone, represented or flying solo, to know and follow the procedures. So, if you’re thinking of representing yourself as a Litigant in Person, do yourself a favour: read the rules and prepare properly.
And if you need any help, then our team of specialist litigation solicitors are available. After all, knowing the difference between an apple and an orange could make all the difference in your case.