Procedural challenges in a fact-finding hearing in wardship proceedings – Family Law

Posted August 15th, 2018 in cross-examination, domestic violence, litigants in person, news, wardship by sally

‘The case of M v F and others [2018] EWHC 1720 (Fam) is a reminder that the main issues in the case should be identified and addressed as early as possible in proceedings. Brendan Roche, barrister, of Seven Bedford Row, highlights the procedural issues that arose because the father was a litigant in person, including whether he could cross-examine the mother.’

Full Story

Family Law, 14th August 2018

Source: www.familylaw.co.uk

‘It’s not fair on you to continue’ – judge kills off LiP’s epic claim – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted August 9th, 2018 in abuse of process, insolvency, litigants in person, news, striking out by tracey

‘A High Court judge has sought once and for all to close three-year proceedings brought by a litigant in person, saying it is not fair to use court time to indulge the matter any further.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 9th August 2018

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Judge takes over father’s cross-examination in case involving rape allegations – and it ends up being unfair on everyone involved – Transparency Project

Posted July 31st, 2018 in appeals, cross-examination, judges, litigants in person, news, rape, witnesses by sally

‘Mr Justice Hayden is a High Court Judge who has been very outspoken about the potential for the court process to be abusive of those who are already victims of domestic abuse. In a case called Re A (a minor) (fact finding; unrepresented party) [2017] EWHC 1195 (Fam), having permitted the unrepresented father to directly question the mother (albeit with special measures in place so they didn’t have to confront each other by line of sight) he memorably said ‘Never again’. Hayden J said it was ‘a stain on the reputation of our Family Justice system that a Judge can still not prevent a victim being cross examined by an alleged perpetrator’. Today he has published an appeal judgment overturning a fact-finding decision in a case where another judge tried to cross examine the mother on behalf of the father accused of rape because (Hayden J said) the process was unfair and the decision unsound. The full judgment can be read here : PS v BP [2018] EWHC 1987 (Fam) (27 July 2018), but this blog post explains it.’

Full Story

Transparency Project, 30th July 2018

Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk

Access to justice in family courts ‘inadequate’, says outgoing head – The Guardian

Posted July 30th, 2018 in budgets, family courts, legal aid, litigants in person, news by sally

‘The outgoing head of the family courts in England and Wales has raised concerns about access to family courts and said help for litigants who had to represent themselves due to cuts to legal aid was “woefully inadequate”.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 27th July 2018

Source: www.theguardian.com

Lawyers could be forced to share notes of hearings with litigants in person – Litigation Futures

‘A new rule giving judges the power to order lawyers to share notes of hearings with litigants in person is being proposed by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Another new rule would put the parties under an explicit obligation to disclose to the other side communications with the court.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 17th July 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Good and bad news for Civil Liability Bill opponents – Legal Futures

‘There was good and bad news from Parliament yesterday for opponents of the Civil Liability Bill as its consideration by MPs was delayed but chances of it being amended receded.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 6th July 2018

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Domestic abusers still able to cross-examine victims in court – The Guardian

‘Victims of domestic violence continue to be cross-examined by their abusers in family courts more than a year after the government promised to stop such ordeals, a report has found.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 30th May 2018

Source: www.theguardian.com

JY v RY: An Indictment of the Impact of Legal Aid Cuts – Family Law Week

‘Matthew Richardson, barrister, Coram Chambers explains why a case, described by the judge as “the most unsatisfactory” he has heard and in which ‘had one or both of these parents been represented … probably the outcome would have been very different’, serves as an alarming lesson in just how far our justice system has fallen.’

Full Story

Family Law Week, 4th May 2018

Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk

Legal aid strike: Solicitors “should help clients represent themselves” if they can’t find barrister, says SRA – Legal Futures

‘Criminal law solicitors unable to find a barrister because of their protest over legal aid fees “may need to assist the client to represent themselves as best they can” if the court will not grant an adjournment, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 26th April 2018

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

No “special treatment” for LiP as judge weighs interests of represented party and the public – Litigation Futures

Posted April 24th, 2018 in civil justice, litigants in person, news by sally

‘A litigant in person (LiP) is not to be given “special treatment” as the rules in the part of the law his case concerns are neither hard to find nor “particularly difficult to understand”, the High Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 24th April 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Court blocks £420k legal aid challenge from litigant in person – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted April 6th, 2018 in judicial review, legal aid, litigants in person, news by sally

‘The High Court has turned down a public funding challenge from a litigant in person who believed a government body was acting against him.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 5th April 2018

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Litigant in person’s “tittle tattle” claim needs a proper hearing, says judge – Litigation Futures

Posted April 5th, 2018 in appeals, litigants in person, news, probate, striking out, summary judgments by sally

‘A litigant in person’s contentious probate claim, part of which was dismissed by a High Court master as “no more than tittle tattle”, needs a proper hearing, a judge has decided.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 5th April 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Speech by Sir Ernest Ryder, Senior President of Tribunals: Assisting Access to Justice – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

‘Speech by Sir Ernest Ryder, Senior President of Tribunals: Assisting Access to Justice.’

Full speech

Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 20th March 2018

Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk

Master of the Rolls: More than four in ten of applications to Court of Appeal come from litigants in person – Legal Futures

Posted March 20th, 2018 in appeals, civil justice, costs, courts, internet, litigants in person, news, speeches by sally

‘The proportion of applications to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal by litigants in person (LiPs) has gone up by 50% in the last 10 years, the Master of the Rolls has said.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 20th March 2018

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Latitude for litigants in person? Apparently not (just about…) – Zenith Chambers

‘On 21 February 2018 judgment was given in the case of Barton -v- Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12.’

Full Story

Zenith Chambers, 26th February 2018

Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk

Supreme Court urges rule committee to clarify status of law firm LLP acting for itself – Litigation Futures

‘The rule committee should look at clarifying whether a law firm LLP which acts for itself in legal proceedings is a litigant in person for the purposes of the CPR, the Supreme Court has said.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 1st March 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Don’t treat litigants in person as an unwelcome problem, judges told – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted March 2nd, 2018 in judiciary, litigants in person, news by tracey

‘Litigants in person should not be seen as an unwelcome problem for the court, judges have been told in 422-page guidance on equal treatment issued by the Judicial College.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 1st March 2018

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Supreme Court: No dispensation for LiPs in complying with rules and orders – Litigation Futures

‘A lack of representation may mean that litigants in person (LiPs) are afforded some latitude in case management decisions and in hearings, but it will “not usually justify” applying a lower standard of compliance with rules or court orders, the Supreme Court said today.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 21st February 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Supreme Court: no indulgence for litigants in person – Family Law

‘Mr Barton is a seasoned litigator. He first sued, and eventually settled with, lawyers who had dealt with financial relief proceedings for him. The defendants in the later Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 acted for him in his claim against those original lawyers after Wright Hassall (WH) had come of the court record in a dispute over fees. WH sued him for their fees and obtained a summary judgment. Mr Barton, acting in person (a litigant in person (LiP)) claimed against WH in professional negligence.’

Full Story

Family Law, 22nd February 2018

Source: www.familylaw.co.uk

Breaking: Supreme Court rules against treating LiP as a special case – Law Society’s Gazette

‘The Supreme Court today narrowly rejected a plea from a litigant in person for special dispensation in navigating civil procedure rules. Justices ruled by a majority of 3-2 in Barton v Wright Hassall that unrepresented claimant Mark Barton should have checked whether he could email a claim form and that without such permission his claim was invalid.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 21st February 2018

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk