‘Not two sets of rules’: Litigant in person handed £100k costs bill – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted April 6th, 2021 in costs, indemnities, litigants in person, news by sally

‘A litigant in person has been ordered to pay almost £100,000 in interim costs after another reminder from the court that unrepresented people cannot expect special treatment.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 6th April 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Litigants baffled as civil procedure rules move to new site – Law Society’s Gazette

‘Lawyers and litigants awoke this morning to the wholesale move of procedure rules to a government website described by one as “unusable”.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 17th February 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Litigant in person threatened opposing lawyers with violence – Legal Futures

‘A High Court judge has expressed concern that a litigant in person has threatened violence against lawyers for the people he is suing while dismissing a bid to disqualify the solicitors from acting.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 8th December 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Court corrects gaffe which allowed ex-husband to stop payments – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted November 16th, 2020 in county courts, divorce, families, financial provision, litigants in person, news by sally

‘A court has permitted the correction of an order which accidentally allowed a husband to stop making payments to his ex-wife.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 16th November 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Covid-19 will have “major impact” on £700m medico-legal market – Litigation Futures

‘The medico-legal and insurance services (MLIS) market had an estimated turnover of £700m last year but the coronavirus will have a “major impact”, a report has warned.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 16th July 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Guidance for litigants in person on remote hearings in the Family Court – Resolution

‘With the advent of the global pandemic hearings in the Family Court are increasingly being held remotely by telephone or on video conferencing software. This guide is designed to help you through the process and includes helpful information on how to prepare for the hearing, how to join a hearing and what to do during the hearing.’

Full guidance

Resolution, 14th July 2020

Source: https://resolution.org.uk/

Judge refuses to recuse herself over counsel link – Litigation Futures

Posted July 8th, 2020 in barristers, bias, judges, litigants in person, McKenzie friends, news, recusal by sally

‘A High Court judge has refused a request from a litigant in person to recuse herself from hearing a case where she had briefly supervised counsel for the defendants at her old chambers.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 8th July 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Right of audience denied: McKenzie Friend not allowed to speak for litigant who was ‘well able to speak on her own behalf’ – Transparency Project

‘The recent case of Ameyaw v McGoldrick [2020] EWHC 1741 (QB) offers a cautionary tale about McKenzie Friends and what they can and can’t do for you in court. In this case the judge, Mrs Justice Steyn, refused to allow the MF to make oral submissions on behalf of the claimant, saying the claimant was a well-educated intelligent woman who had extensive experience of litigation, and was perfectly capable of speaking for herself.’

Full Story

Transparency Project, 5th July 2020

Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk

New Judgment: Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2020] UKSC 23 – UKSC Blog

‘Serafin had sued Malkiewicz & Ors for libel in respect of an article they had published about him in Nowy Czas, a newspaper addressing issues of interest to the Polish community in the UK. The Court of Appeal found that the conduct of the trial by Mr Justice Jay in the High Court had been unfair towards the claimant and allowed the claimant’s appeal. The defendants appealed against that finding to the Supreme Court. They also challenged the Court of Appeal’s analysis of the effect of the Defamation Act 2013, S4, which sets out “the public interest defence” to a defamation claim.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 3rd June 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

“Hostile” judge harassed litigant in person, Supreme Court rules – Litigation Futures

‘A High Court judge “harassed and intimidated” a litigant in person in ways which “surely would never have occurred if the claimant had been represented”, the Supreme Court has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 3rd June 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Supreme court orders libel case retrial over judge’s ‘barrage of hostility’ – The Guardian

‘The supreme court has ordered the re-trial of a long-running libel case after finding that a high court judge, Mr Justice Jay, subjected the unrepresented claimant to a “barrage of hostility” and offensive language.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 3rd June 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Judge explains himself in writing after phone hearing fails – Legal Futures

‘A High Court judge has been forced to issue a detailed judgment in writing because his voice was “breaking up” at the end of a telephone hearing with a litigant in person (LiP) and the law firm suing her for fees.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 13th May 2020

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Self-isolating litigant in person appears via barrister’s mobile – Litigation Futures

‘A barrister has spoken of how a self-isolating defendant in a fast-track personal injury claim appeared before the court via WhatsApp video.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 23rd March 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

CoA rules litigant in person needed help making right claim – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted March 19th, 2020 in litigants in person, news, pleadings by sally

‘Appeal judges have advised that courts must step in if litigants in person are mistakenly pursuing the wrong case. In Mervyn v BW Controls Ltd the Court of Appeal ruled that, in cases where at least one party is unrepresented, judges should intervene to clarify issues which arise on pleadings and confirm which claims have been conceded.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 18th March 2020

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Has the test for whether or not an appeal should be allowed in respect of a case management decision, as laid down in O’Cathail v Transport for London, been impliedly overruled by R (Osborn) v Parole Board? No, says the EAT in Chowdhury v Marsh Farm Futures UKEAT/0473/18/DA – 3PB

‘Employment Tribunal judges have a wide discretion when making case management decisions, with it being rare for a challenge to such a decision being successful. The Court of Appeal in O’Cathail v Transport for London [2013] IRLR 310 have made it clear that tribunal decisions can only be questioned for error of law. The specific issue in that case was whether or not it was an error of law for a Tribunal to refuse a postponement application in circumstances in which a litigant in person had a fit note saying they were not fit to attend the hearing. The application was refused and the trial went ahead in his absence.’

Full Story

3PB, 7th February 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Dealing with Applications for Adjournments due to Ill-Health – St Ives Chambers

Posted February 14th, 2020 in adjournment, case management, chambers articles, health, litigants in person, news by sally

‘The High Court has provided a comprehensive summary, in the case of Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) V Avacade Ltd & Ores [2020] EWHC 26, of the relevant authorities when it comes to applying for an adjournment on the grounds of ill-health.’

Full Story

St Ives Chambers, 6th February 2020

Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk

Court rejects LiP’s “indiscriminate attack” on legal expenses insurers – Litigation Futures

‘The High Court has struck out a claim by a litigant-in-person (LiP) who responded to the failure of her employment tribunal case by launching an “indiscriminate attack” against legal expenses insurers and regulators.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 30th January 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Circuit judge wins online harassment injunction – Legal Futures

Posted December 12th, 2019 in harassment, injunctions, internet, judges, litigants in person, news, vexatious litigants by tracey

‘A circuit judge has won an injunction against a disgruntled litigant in person who created a website to attack him and his family, and had thrown out as vexatious an attempt to counter-claim.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 12th December 2019

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Good practice for lawyers towards litigants in person – Family Law

‘Despite there being a variety of reasons why someone may choose to represent themselves in the family courts – this decision isn’t an anomaly. Now only 20% of family court cases have both parties represented. It’s a trend we’ve seen grow in recent years.’

Full Story

Family Law, 10th December 2019

Source: www.familylaw.co.uk

News Judge wins harassment order against LiP with ‘vendetta’ – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted December 11th, 2019 in harassment, injunctions, internet, judges, litigants in person, news by tracey

‘A circuit judge has secured an injunction against a disgruntled litigant in person who pursued a vendetta against him following an adverse ruling.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 10th December 2019

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk