Do Litigants in Person receive special treatment from the courts in England and Wales?
It’s commonly assumed that Litigants in Person, or LiPs (parties who represent themselves in legal proceedings) are treated more leniently by the courts than their professional counterparts. However, judicial decisions have consistently affirmed that LiPs are held to the same procedural standards as those with legal representation. In this article we take a look at some of those pronouncements, concluding with an examination of the recent case of Christodoulides v Holbech.
Barton v Wright Hassall LLP – Emailing Isn’t Always Believing
In the case of Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [1], Mr. Barton, acting as a LiP, attempted to serve a claim form via email without obtaining prior consent from the Defendant’s solicitors to accept service by this method. The Supreme Court held that such service was invalid, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Barton was not legally trained. The Court emphasised that the rules regarding service by email are neither inaccessible nor obscure, and thus, even LiPs are expected to comply with them. The Court stated that while representing oneself is challenging, it does not warrant a lower standard of adherence to procedural rules.
Reynard v Fox – Apples Are Not Oranges
In Reynard v Fox [2], Mr. Reynard, a LiP, brought claims against his trustee in bankruptcy for breach of contract and negligence. However, he failed to follow the correct procedural steps, leading to the ultimate dismissal of his case. 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 Jones v Longley [3], the LiP submitted a disorganised and unclear counterclaim. The Court of Appeal held that allowing substandard pleadings would undermine the fairness of proceedings. The judgment emphasised that all parties, including LiPs, are required to present coherent and structured legal arguments, ensuring that the judicial process remains fair and efficient.
EDF Energy Customers Ltd v Re-Energized Ltd – No Free Passes
The case of EDF Energy Customers Ltd v Re-Energized Ltd [4], involved a company director representing the company without legal counsel. The court acknowledged the challenges faced by LiPs but highlighted that leniency towards them could impose additional burdens on both the court system and represented parties. The judgment demonstrated that while courts strive to ensure fairness, they must also maintain procedural efficiency and not allow the unrepresented status of a party to disrupt the judicial process.
Tinkler v Elliott – A Late Realisation is Still Late
In Tinkler v Elliott [5], Mr. Tinkler, acting as a LiP, failed to take necessary procedural actions for several months, later arguing that he did not understand the available options. The court rejected this argument, stating that a lack of understanding does not entitle a litigant to special indulgence. This case highlights the importance of taking timely and informed steps in legal proceedings, regardless of a party’s representation status.
Christodoulides v Holbech – Strict Adherence to Procedural Rules
In the 2024 case of Christodoulides v Holbech [6], the claimant, representing herself, applied for an oral hearing to challenge a provisional assessment of her barrister’s fees incurred during a prior professional negligence lawsuit against a firm of solicitors. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) mandate that requests for oral hearings must specifically identify the items in the provisional assessment to be reviewed. The claimant’s application, however, failed to pinpoint any of the 43 assessed items and instead comprised broad allegations of unfairness and misconduct.
Deputy Costs Judge Roy KC dismissed the application, emphasising that the Claimant did not comply with the clear requirements of the CPR. He noted that while it is challenging for LiPs to focus their arguments appropriately, their unrepresented status does not excuse non-compliance with procedural rules. The judge actually referenced the above case of Barton v Wright Hassall LLP, reiterating that being a LiP does not justify a lower standard of adherence to procedural requirements.
So, What’s the Verdict?
These cases collectively affirm that while the courts may exhibit some patience towards LiPs, they are unequivocally expected to familiarise themselves with and adhere to procedural rules. Ignorance or misunderstanding of the law does not grant immunity from its requirements. Therefore, individuals considering self-representation should make an effort to educate themselves on the applicable legal procedures or seek professional legal assistance to navigate the complexities of the legal system effectively.
How we can help
If you need any help in dealing with a legal action, 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.
Call us on 0333 888 0404 or email us at [email protected]
[1] Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12
The Supreme Court’s official judgment is available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0136
[2] Reynard v Fox [2018] EWHC 443 (Ch),
A summary of the case is available on the Maitland Chambers website.
[3] Jones v Longley [2015] EWCA Civ 1408
The judgment is accessible at: https://www.lawjournals.co.uk/wills-trusts-law-reports/jones-v-longley-2015-ewhc-3362-ch/
[4] EDF Energy Customers Ltd v Re-Energized Ltd [2018] EWHC 652 (Ch)
The judgment is accessible at: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2018/652.html&query=(denton)
[5] Tinkler v Elliott [2012] EWCA Civ 1289
The judgment is accessible at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1289.html
[6] Christodoulides v Holbech [2024] EWHC 2501 (KB),
The judgment is accessible at: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/scco/2024/2172?query=holbech
