‘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.’
Law Society's Gazette, 6th April 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Lawyers and litigants awoke this morning to the wholesale move of procedure rules to a government website described by one as “unusable”.’
Law Society's Gazette, 17th February 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
Legal Futures, 8th December 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A court has permitted the correction of an order which accidentally allowed a husband to stop making payments to his ex-wife.’
Law Society's Gazette, 16th November 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 16th July 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Resolution, 14th July 2020
Source: https://resolution.org.uk/
‘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.’
Transparency Project, 5th July 2020
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘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.’
UKSC Blog, 3rd June 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 3rd June 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
The Guardian, 3rd June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
Legal Futures, 13th May 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘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.’
Law Society's Gazette, 18th March 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
3PB, 7th February 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘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.’
St Ives Chambers, 6th February 2020
Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 30th January 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Legal Futures, 12th December 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A circuit judge has secured an injunction against a disgruntled litigant in person who pursued a vendetta against him following an adverse ruling.’
Law Society's Gazette, 10th December 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2021