Kerry Underwood


with 26 comments

The courts are experiencing a very significant increase in the number of Litigants in Person following the sharp increase in legal fees to be paid by individuals as a result of the Jackson reforms, and the virtual abolition of civil legal aid. This is already causing problems in the courts as cases involving Litigants in Person take much longer than those involving represented parties.

Indeed The Spectator, 20 February 2014, hardly a journal of the left, says “the number of them has exploded” since “the government slashed legal aid in April of last year.” (2013), and that the majority of trials now have at least one unrepresented party. One barrister commented that “the man in the street has as much chance of dealing with these issues as building their own rocket to the moon.”  It is a fascinating article and needs to be read.

The increase has prompted The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to publish  “A guide to proceedings in the Supreme Court for those without a legal representative.” (February 2014). This is a short and helpful guide which lawyers will also find useful.

On 1 October 2015 a new rule was introduced in relation to case management of matters involving litigants in person and this was achieved by the 81st update to the Civil Procedure Rules.

” Case Management- unrepresented parties

3.1A – (1)  This rule applies in any proceedings where at least one party is unrepresented.

(2)  When the court is exercising any powers of case management, it must have regard to the fact         that at least one party is unrepresented.

(3) Both the parties and the court must, when drafting case management directions in the multi-track and fast track, take as their starting point any relevant standard directions which can be found online and adopt them as appropriate to the circumstances of the case.

(4)  The court must adopt such procedures at any hearing as it considers appropriate to further the overriding objective.

(5)  At any hearing where the court is taking evidence this may include-

(a) ascertaining from an unrepresented party the matters about which the witness may be able to give evidence or on which the witness ought to be cross-examined; and

(b) putting, or causing to be put, to the witness such questions as may appear to the court to be proper.”

Meanwhile in Akcine Bendore Bankas Snoras (in bankruptcy) v Yampolskaya [2015] EWHC 2136 (QB)

the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court refused relief from sanctions to a litigant in person who had failed to file an appeal bundle in breach of an unless order.Her appeal was struck out.

The High Court gave guidance as to assessing defaults by litigants in person. They should not all be treated the same.The court may take into account the needs of a litigant in person who is impecunious or unable to speak English.

The High Court has also produced a formal guide for Litigants in Person in interim applications and no doubt more will follow.

The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013, published on 13 February 2013, do not alter substantially the position in relation to Litigants in Person, but the relevant rule is now CPR 46.5, which I set out at the end of this piece. Here I do not deal with the problems in the criminal courts caused by the unavailability of counsel in Very High Costs Cases due to the reduction in legal aid fees, and other changes, in criminal cases.

Nor do I deal here with the problems caused for everyone, but especially Litigants in Person, by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Mitchell [2013] EWCA Civ 1526, 27 November 2013 I deal with the whole issue of relief from sanctions in my piece: Relief From Sanctions.

Here I am largely dealing with the consequences for lawyers representing clients who are opposed by Litigants in Person, who were to be known by the Orwellian name of “self-represented litigants “. No doubt “self-operating patients” were soon to be with us. Fortunately the High Court has put a stop to that nonsense and Litigants in Person they remain.

In Tinkler and another v Elliott [2012] EWCA Civ 1289 the self-representing Mr Elliott failed to attend trial but instead submitted a medical certificate of unfitness to attend court. The trial judge rejected this and granted the other party a permanent injunction and general restraining order against Mr Elliott.

On appeal the High Court set the judgment aside under CPR 39.3 holding that Mr Elliott had a good reason for not attending the original hearing.

The Court of Appeal restored the original court’s decision, holding that CPR 39.3 must be rigorously applied. Under that Part the court had no discretion to set aside a decision taken in a party’s absence until the applicant satisfied the three positive requirements of the rule.

The first requires that the applicant “has acted with all reasonable celerity* in the circumstances”.

– See Regency Rolls Ltd v Carnall [2000] EWCA Civ 379.

(*Celerity – noun archaic – “swiftness, speed”. Appears below celeriac and above celery in the Oxford English Dictionary).

Mr Elliott had relied on his poor mental health and “his ignorance as a litigant in person of the availability of an application to set aside”.

The Court of Appeal held that Mr Elliott had been capable of acting as a litigant in person. However the significance of the case is the Court of Appeal’s findings in relation to his ignorance as a person representing himself.

The Court of Appeal said that “there may be facts and circumstances in relation to a litigant in person that may go to an assessment of promptness……they will only operate close to the margins,” and that “an opponent of a litigant in person is entitled to assume finality without expecting excessive indulgence to be extended to the litigant in person,” and that lack of understanding of procedures “does not entitle him to extra indulgence”.

This was in the context of a 21 month delay in Mr Elliott making his CPR 39.3 application, but the findings are of relevance generally and were not specific to this case.

In Fernandes v Kenny and Others, Court of Appeal, 23 October 2012

an unrepresented landlord applied to set aside a judgment for damages in respect of a deposit, the judgment having been entered at a small claims hearing which he had failed to attend.

The application to the District Judge failed, as did the first tier appeal to the Circuit Judge, who held that there was no discretion to hear an application made out of time.

The Court of Appeal held that the Circuit Judge had overlooked the fact that CPR3.1 allowed the court to extend the time limit set out in CPR27.11(2) but nevertheless found that the lower courts had been correct in finding that the landlord had had no good reason for failing to attend the original hearing.

However the Employment Appeal Tribunal has taken a different view in relation to litigants in person in Employment Tribunals, possibly influenced by the fact that such tribunals have historically been no-costs zones where individuals were expected to be able to represent themselves.

In AQ Ltd v Holden [2012] IRLR 648

the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that a court was entitled to take in to account the fact that a party was a litigant in person in deciding whether to order costs against that party.

Although the law is the same whether a litigant is or is not professionally represented, the application of that law, and the court’s exercise of its discretion, must take in to account whether a litigant is professionally represented.

A tribunal cannot and should not judge a litigant in person by the standards of a professional representative.

Lay people are entitled to represent themselves in tribunals and, as legal aid is not available and they will not usually recover costs if they are successful, it is inevitable that many lay people will represent themselves.

Justice requires that tribunals do not apply professional standards to such people, who may be involved in legal proceedings for the only time in their life. They are likely to lack the objectivity and knowledge of law and practice brought by a professional legal adviser.

Even if the threshold tests for an order for costs are met, the tribunal has discretion whether to make an order, and that discretion must be exercised having regard to all of the circumstances.

However lay people should not regard themselves as immune from costs orders.

The EAT was here dealing with Rule 40(3) of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, which provides that an order for costs may be made where the paying party in bringing or conducting proceedings has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably.

In January 2013 the High Court published a self-help guide for litigants in persons presenting cases to the interim applications court. The Guide has been written by Mr Justice Foskett and takes litigants through each stage of the process, from giving notice and presenting documents to how to behave in court, apply for costs and seek permission to appeal.

The interim applications court deals with short applications of an interim nature within existing or, sometimes, proposed proceedings in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court. It does not deal with family or matrimonial cases. The most commonly heard applications include applying for an injunction to prevent a former employee from abusing confidential information, setting up in competition or working for a rival employer; preventing travellers occupying a site in contravention of the planning laws; freezing orders to prevent the sale of property; and applying for the disclosure of specific documents.

The Guide will be kept under review and updated.

The right of a Litigant in Person to claim costs derives from The Litigants In Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975; there was no such right at common law.

The Act gives a Litigant in Person the right to recover “sums in respect of any work done, and any expenses and losses incurred, by the litigant in or in connection with the proceedings to which the order relates”.

It applies to all civil and family courts, the Lands Tribunal and both the first tier and upper tribunals and most cost-bearing tribunals; by section 1(1) of the Act, only out of pocket disbursements are recoverable if costs are not recoverable.

CPR 46.5(6) below lists the categories of Litigants in Person. The fact that a party is represented for part of the proceedings does not prevent recovery for work done when not represented – see

Agassi v Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes) [2005] EWCA Civ 1507 [2006] 1 All ER 900

A Litigant in Person should file and serve written evidence to show actual loss 24 hours before any hearing and if the costs are to be subject to detailed assessment then written evidence is to be filed with the notice of commencement.  This will now virtually always be a provisional assessment.

Paragraph 52.4 of the Costs Practice Direction was amended with effect from 1 October 2011 to increase costs payable from £9.25 per hour to £18.00 per hour.

New CPR 46.5(5), replacing its identically worded predecessor, pre-empts double recovery by providing:

‘A litigant who is allowed costs for attending at court to conduct his case is not entitled to a witness allowance in respect of such attendance in addition to those costs.’

Litigants in person (LIPs) fall into two categories: those who can prove financial loss and those who cannot. The new rate of £18 an hour is compensation for time reasonably spent by those who cannot prove financial loss.

And what of those who can prove loss? There are two caps: first, they cannot recover more than they have lost. The second cap is that the litigant cannot recover more than two-thirds of the amount to which a solicitor would have been entitled.  This limit does not apply to disbursements.

It is for the Litigant in Person to shown on the balance of probabilities that a financial loss has been suffered, and what that loss is.

In Mainwaring v Goldtech Investments Ltd [1997] 1 All ER 467 the court referred to the difference between:

“a self-employed tradesman in a small but profitable way of business who has more custom than he can cope with and can fill every working hour to advantage; at the other extreme, a retired civil servant with an index-linked pension who finds the conduct of litigation a more interesting pastime than bowls or crossword puzzles”.

In Joseph v Boyd and Hutchinson [2003] EWHC 413 the court considered that it should adopt a broad brush approach in circumstances where work was done during hours when the Litigant in Person was available for work.  It was not necessary to enquire to any great extent as to whether they would have been engaged on other business, but the Litigant in Person must show that s/he would have been gainfully employed and also how much would have been earnt.

If the loss is less than £18 per hour the Litigant in Person is better off claiming the flat rate of £18 per hour.

In any event the maximum two-thirds of what would have been allowed to a legal representative applies.

CPR 46.5(3) below sets out the categories of claim that  Litigant in Person may make.

“Expert assistance” is defined in Practice Direction 46, Paragraph 3.1, as assistance from a barrister, solicitor, Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, Fellow of the Association of Costs Lawyers or a law costs draftsman who is a member of the Academy of Experts or the Expert Witness Institute.

Work done must be work that a legal representative would have undertaken and a disbursement must be one that would have been incurred by a legal representative.  The Litigant in Person must choose whether the claim as a witness or a notional legal representative; s/he cannot claim both (CPR 46.5(5)).

Additional Research

 In Grand v Gill [2011] EWCA Civ 902 the court followed the decision in R v Legal Services Commission Ex Parte Wulfsohn [2002] EWCA Civ 250 that a reasonable sum for time spent on research is recoverable.


 Proportionality applies in full to Litigants in Person.  In Grand the court reduced the costs from £15,000 claimed to £707.77.

Trial Costs

 A Litigant in Person cannot recover notional disbursements such as counsel’s fees where counsel was not instructed – see

Hart v Aga Khan Foundation (UK) [1984] 2 All ER 439.

It appears that in a fast-track trial where a Litigant in Person establishes a financial loss they are entitled to two-thirds of the sum allowable to the trial advocate, whatever the actual oss, together with any additional CPR 45.39 costs.


 Postage, telephones, copying etc are treated as unrecoverable office overheads for legal representatives.

In Mealing-McLeod v The Common Professional Examination Board [2000] EWHC 185 (QB) the court said

“A solicitor’s charging rate includes or takes account of the fact that he has support staff, secretaries, messengers and so forth.  A Litigant in Person, for example, must himself post letters, takes files to court and photocopy documents.  “The time spent reasonably doing the work…..” mentioned in CPR 48.6(4) permits a reasonable assessment of time spent by the Litigant in Person and should reflect those matters”.

However the phrase “time reasonably spent” no longer appears in the rule or practice direction and so it is questionable whether such costs can be recovered.  It could be argued that these expenses are reflected in a legal representative’s hourly rate, but not in the much lower hourly rate of a Litigant in Person, who should therefore be able to recover such actual costs.

The consequences of a LIP not using a solicitor were demonstrated in Agassi v Robinson (Inspector of Taxes) (Bar Council intervening) [2005] EWCA Civ 1507, [2006] 1 All ER 900, [2006] 1 WLR 2126. Mr Agassi retained a tax expert who was a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation licensed to instruct counsel directly. No solicitors were involved. Mr Agassi was awarded his costs as a LIP. Were the tax expert’s fees recoverable as costs under the general costs provisions of CPR 48.6? The answer is no. Although Mr Agassi could recover counsel’s fee as a disbursement, he was not entitled to recover as a LIP costs as a disbursement in respect of work done by the tax expert which would normally have been done by a solicitor. That meant he was not entitled to recover the costs of the tax expert providing general assistance to counsel.

Below is the text of CPR 46.5 with effect from 1 April 2013, as created by The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013.

Litigants in person

46.5.—(1) This rule applies where the court orders (whether by summary assessment or detailed assessment) that the costs of a litigant in person are to be paid by any other person.

(2) The costs allowed under this rule will not exceed, except in the case of a disbursement, two-thirds of the amount which would have been allowed if the litigant in person had been represented by a legal representative.

(3) The litigant in person shall be allowed—

(a) costs for the same categories of—

(i) work; and

(ii) disbursements,

which would have been allowed if the work had been done or the disbursements had been made by a legal representative on the litigant in person’s behalf;

(b) the payments reasonably made by the litigant in person for legal services relating to the conduct of the proceedings; and

(c) the costs of obtaining expert assistance in assessing the costs claim.

(4) The amount of costs to be allowed to the litigant in person for any item of work claimed will be—

(a) where the litigant can prove financial loss, the amount that the litigant can prove to have been lost for time reasonably spent on doing the work; or

(b) where the litigant cannot prove financial loss, an amount for the time reasonably spent on doing the work at the rate set out in Practice Direction 46.

(5) A litigant who is allowed costs for attending at court to conduct the case is not entitled to a witness allowance in respect of such attendance in addition to those costs.

(6) For the purposes of this rule, a litigant in person includes—

(a) a company or other corporation which is acting without a legal representative; and

(b) any of the following who acts in person (except where any such person is represented by a firm in which that person is a partner)—

(i) a barrister;

(ii) a solicitor;

(iii) a solicitor’s employee;

(iv) a manager of a body recognised under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (a) ; or

(v) a person who, for the purposes of the 2007 Act(b), is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act).


Practice Direction

 Litigants in person: rule 46.5

 3.1          In order to qualify as an expert for the purpose of rule 46.5(3)(c) (expert assistance in connection with assessing the claim for costs), the person in question must be a –

(a) barrister;

(b) solicitor;

(c) Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives;

(d) Fellow of the Association of Costs Lawyers;

(e) law costs draftsman who is a member of the Academy of Experts;

(f) law costs draftsman who is a member of the Expert Witness Institute.

3.2          Where a self represented litigant wishes to prove that the litigant has suffered financial loss, the litigant should produce to the court any written evidence relied on to support that claim, and serve a copy of that evidence on any party against whom the litigant seeks costs at least 24 hours before the hearing at which the question may be decided.

3.3          A self represented litigant who commences detailed assessment proceedings under rule 47.5 should serve copies of that written evidence with the notice of commencement.

3.4          The amount, which may be allowed to a self represented litigant under rule 45.39(5)(b) and rule 46.5(4)(b), is £18 per hour.

(a) 1985 c. 61. Section 9 was amended by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, section 125(3), (7), Schedules 18 and 20; the Access to Justice Act 1999 section 106, Schedule 15 Part II; S.I. 2000/1119 regulation 37(3), Schedule 4 paragraph 15; the Legal Services Act 2007, section 177, 210, Schedule 16, Part 2, paragraphs 80 and 81 and Schedule 23; S.I. 2001/1090, regulation 1, 9, Schedule 5 paragraph 12; S.I. 2011/1716 article 4.

(b) 2007 c.29.

I am grateful to Regional Costs Judge Ian Besford for much of the information in this piece.

Written by kerryunderwood

November 14, 2013 at 11:51 am

Posted in Uncategorized

26 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Re: Grand v Gill – 730 hours research and 190 on documents; add another 190 hours in the UNI bar and she could have had an LLB

    Dave Marsh

    November 14, 2013 at 12:06 pm

  2. Grrrr – Don’t get me started on proportionality – I’ve been playing this game for some time; I haven’t served a Bill yet that wasn’t considered disproportionate

    But no one has yet to give me a reasonable answer as what the Bill is disproportionate to …

    The Free Dictionary ( gives …

    1. A part considered in relation to the whole.
    2. A relationship between things or parts of things with respect to comparative magnitude, quantity, or degree: the proper proportion between oil and vinegar in the dressing.
    3. A relationship between quantities such that if one varies then another varies in a manner dependent on the first: “We do not always find visible happiness in proportion to visible virtue” (Samuel Johnson).
    4. Agreeable or harmonious relation of parts within a whole; balance or symmetry.
    5. Dimensions; size. Often used in the plural.
    6. Mathematics A statement of equality between two ratios. Four quantities, a, b, c, d, are said to be in proportion if a/b = c/d .

    Not much sense there then

    … and since when did the costs relate to the damages


    3 month whiplash claim, issued on limitation, dedided 3 years later after full on fraud / LVI / causation trial with 6 med reports, accountancy report, 6 independent witnesses, on each side, in the Claimant’s favour for £1,000.01


    simple LOE claim, concert violinist, small knock to fiddling finger, can’t perform for 2 months (prima donna) and loses £5,000,000.00 in fees
    Settles 2 days after the letter of claim

    Are costs in the latter to be 5000 times that of the former !!!

    Dave Marsh

    November 14, 2013 at 2:15 pm

  3. Ah – proportionality, referral fees and solicitor inducements – always guaranteed to produce a response. Many thanks for taking the trouble to comment.



    November 14, 2013 at 2:23 pm

  4. […] seen a very interesting and helpful additional article on the subject by another solicitor, Kerry Underwood, which you can read here, this in turn refers and links to an interesting publication from the High […]

  5. I may now be bitterly cynical but in my experience courts bend over backwards to make these dramatic gestures apparently favouring the litigant in person for an altogether more sinister purpose. They are simply window dressing to disguise from the hapless litigant and any half informed observers, the real purpose of the court. Having thus established their credentials and complied with their judicial function, in accordance with the guidelines for dealing with litigants in person; they are then able to smoothly transition into applying the first law of litigation which is that an LiP must not in any circumstances be permitted to win against a barrister far less a QC. Absolutely no principle in law is more sacred and the courts will stop at nothing to eject LiPs at the earliest opportunity. They reserve particular hatred and contempt for a small but particular sub set of litigants – those who know what they are doing, are well researched, have the law and authorities on their side, and argue their cases carefully, with economy and courtesy. In the statistically unlikely event such a litigant is ever given permission to appeal to the CA – as I have been – they can stand by for more of the same treatment by the full court.

    Simon Wallis

    December 16, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    • That is an interesting view. It is not one that entirely accords with my experience, but I recognize that here I fall very firmly in to the Mandy Rice-Davies, or was it Christine Keeler, category of ” Well. he would, wouldn’t he?” You will see from other comments on other of my blogs that you are not alone in your view, which is one that I respect and which concerns me deeply.

      I suspect that research would be of limited value as one would expect trained lawyers to have more success than untrained litigants in person and thus that fact alone would not demonstrate judicial bias.Whether trained lawyers should have that advantage is a different issue, but in the system that we have, along with virtually every country in the world, that is inevitable.

      However it does concern me, and I am sure that you are right, that certain lawyers at a certain stage enjoy a degree of deference; with all due modesty I feel that I have been the beneficiary of that occasionally, for example in costs matters. That operates not only to the detriment of litigants in person, but to the detriment of junior lawyers, or rather those that they represent, as well.

      I believe that we are touching deeper, rawer nerves here. Most societies operate on a system of respect for elders, chiefs etc., which in part is a passing of responsibility to others, and therefore that which challenges the wisdom and knowledge of judges and lawyers is threatening to many who are not prepared to take that responsibility.

      Who indeed judges the judges?

      Many thanks for your comment.



      December 16, 2013 at 11:01 pm

      • I’m inclined to agree with Simon Wallis on the above matter, and have adopted a persona broadly in line with… “those who know what they are doing, are well researched, have the law and authorities on their side, and argue their cases carefully, with economy and courtesy.” However, as all too many of us are now aware, the legal trade is stacked against any litigant in person and the deception runs deep and wide.
        We need a root and branch overhaul and that might happen here in Scotland should we achieve Independence (or even declare it!). Elsewhere in the UK though, I’m doubtful that it will ever happen any time soon, unless there’s an appetite for revolution.
        Solicitors and other ‘legal’ professionals should welcome, and indeed seek major reform themselves, or risk being seen as part of the problem, as there’s always a need for affordable, expertise.


        February 17, 2014 at 7:12 pm

      • Thanks James

        Interesting! I reckon that 99% of lawyers are of the view that courts bend over backwards to assist Litigants in Person and that they generally double the length, and therefore the cost, of the hearing.



        February 17, 2014 at 7:19 pm

      • The 1% are evidently vastly more court experienced!

        “The liberties of none are safe unless the liberties of all are protected.”

        William O. Douglas


        February 17, 2014 at 7:39 pm

  6. I entirely accept the right of anyone to appear in person and accept that the numbers have, and will continue, to rise sharply because of the almost total abolition of legal aid in civil work. I also accept that the system is not user-friendly, either for lawyers, but especially for Litigants in Person.

    From my experience as an Employment Judge, where many people appeared in person, it does greatly lengthen the hearing, not that I have a problem with that.



    February 17, 2014 at 7:45 pm

  7. Deference to learned Counsel is all very well. And no doubt they greatly assist the court. But the quality of representation is not even any kind of preliminary indicator of the merits of the case. The client might be an obsessive and rich nutcase with not a hope in hell who is praying for a miracle. Nevertheless the QC will start off – far from admitting any weakness – by adopting a presumption of victory. It is an extraordinary phenomena to watch. In one case I went through four hearings with a QC and neither he or the judge managed to make a single reference to the substantive law. Then the judge made a declaration of a right of light on the basis of a pleaded case of eighteen years use, in the face of an admitted one year interruption with notice of both parties, against a property where the freehold was bono vacantia to the Crown. This the judge held was in line with what he described as “the complete fiction of the lost modern grant”. Costs were 32k. No wonder I am cynical. Courts in general can be really shocking places for people interested in justice.


    March 1, 2014 at 12:00 pm

  8. Another thought Kerry. There is a flipside to this equation. A very well informed litigant can quickly discover that many solicitors do not have a litigation mind set and can be very poor and poor value for money. Many of them tick over on the half hearted assumption the case will settle eventually by magic. And they just love writing letters containing loads of guff. (Easy cash).

    I served a s71? sex discrimination questionaire on a huge company once on the last day before they shut for Xmas. The first question was : For each of your 500 staff please indicate their sex, age, position and salary on a schedule.

    They then settled for more than had ever been awarded in a court in like proceedings. Solicitors costs ? Five grand. Plus VAT. Useless. Conveniently s71 is not even included in the Employment Statute Handbook I bought for over 20 quid. Waste of money.

    s71? is the Exocet missile of employment litigation (as I am sure you know Kerry). But few solicitors seem familiar with it.


    June 13, 2015 at 6:50 pm

    • Don’t know what book you have but the best is Butterworths Employment Law Handbook 2015, price £115, which has it all in.


      June 18, 2015 at 1:41 pm

  9. I have and continue to be a litigant in person. I am going through an acrimonious split from my cohabit ex partner. He is financially secure and uses his brother and his brothers firm of solicitors to hound and bully me through legal means. I on the other hand have lost my job, being treated for depression and anxiety because of the shock of him leaving me and our 5 year old child. I have represented myself eight times and feel like his side don’t take me seriously as they always delay papers, threaten me with costs and do not respond to my letters. So any information is beneficial to me.


    July 13, 2015 at 10:56 pm

  10. […] Please see also my blog “Litigants in Person: Acting in Cases Involving Them and Advising Them“ […]

  11. As a frequent LiP I would say that it is not a general rule that Judges or Barrister’s treat unqualified litigants unfairly or with contempt; but some do. It is the luck of the draw. When faced with a hostile environment you must be polite but firm and above all, always be right.

    I would like to offer advice to any person that is considering representing themselves. Properly prepare yourself. That means you must fully understand the law, procedure and the facts of your case. It is a waste of everybody’s time if you are not properly prepared, especially your own. In properly researching your case, you will often find that it is not as strong as you may have initially thought and you may decide not to proceed. Being morally right does not necessarily translate to being legally right.

    The above was learned from experience; but with the exception of my first case I have never lost. This is not because I am a legal genius, or that I am an exceptional advocate, it is because I choose what cases I bring to court; a professional often does not have that advantage. Above all, I prepare and try to stay several steps ahead of the judge and the opposing council.

    PS I am not a nuisance litigator; I work in the field of public and constitutional law and try to point out where governments have slipped up and exceeded their powers.

    Jerzy kolodziej

    April 13, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    • Thank you for this contribution.


      April 15, 2016 at 11:31 am

      • It is an interesting article However maybe the other side should be heard as well. I recently decided to represent myself. I have no legal training but I did attend a well respected university.
        I did succeed in the trial and I succeeded subsequently in the appeal.
        But the end result is not important here. What is important is the journey to get to the end result.

        I decided to represent myself because legal representation for case dealing with issues under £1 Million (a somewhat arbitrary guess on my part) is generally a risky undertaking. The cost of the representation is not really recoverable. Moreover in my experience the solicitors who take on such cases are rarely properly prepared and often venture into legal territory that they are not familiar with.

        The first indication that my solicitor opponent was acting like a laymen was the fact that I never received a notice that she was engaged by my opponent. The notice of representation was filed in court, but I was never served.
        The second issue was that the opponent failed to file a witness statement in opposition to my application for a summary judgment in the prescribed time. How hard is it to review the CPR rules for summary judgment?

        The barrister who should up at the hearing was a member of a prominent chamber and had twenty years of experience. Nevertheless he was totally unprepared. His legal arguments were inconsistent and off point.
        I admit that I am not the best speaker and I wished that a barrister had presented the case eloquently. However the power of eloquence does not make up for lack of substance.

        It appears to me that the legal profession for good economic reasons limits its preparation for small value cases. That however leaves the litigant hanging.

        So for small value cases a prospective litigant should consider writing the sum under dispute off or invest the time to pursue the case. The civil procedure rules are not difficult to follow, but it is my careful reading of these rules that won the case for me (besides the substance of the case).

        Peter Riemenschneider

        May 18, 2017 at 3:15 pm

      • Thank you- that is interesting. However as to costs, they are recoverable in any case worth over £10,000. Most lawyers would never in their career have a claim worth over £1 million, so I do not accept that lawyers are not financially interested in such cases.



        May 19, 2017 at 8:20 am

  12. So are you saying that costs are not recoverable in cases less than £10000? I have read the CPR PD on litigants in persons and I do not know where it says that. Secondly is an expert really needed for cost assessment for a litigant in persons?

    Fediben Gal (@fedibengal)

    December 1, 2018 at 9:23 am

  13. My experience is that litigants in person are treated with contempt by County Court staff. I had a case where the Court would happily email the solicitors opposing me, but not myself: I was always expected to wait a week or so for the post. I was also incorrectly informed that I had to turn up at Court for a hearing that had, in fact, been vacated. My correspondence was often ignored and the listing of my own application was communicated to the Claimant’s solicitor but not to myself. The system really is stacked against us. And I say that as someone with a legal background.


    August 27, 2020 at 1:50 pm

    • Jan

      Thank you for your comment, and I agree that litigants in person are often not treated in the same way as legal representatives.

      As you may have gathered, my piece was designed to provoke thought and comment. Litigants in person are allowed to present their own cases and conduct their own litigation, and while that remains the case, they should always be treated with the same courtesy and respect as legal representatives.

      My experience in court is that judges generally work very hard to ensure that a litigant in person can put their case fully and properly.

      Your comment about the system being stacked against litigants in person is interesting. Many represented parties with litigants in person on the other side feel exactly the same, namely that the courts are far more lenient when litigants in person fail to comply with deadlines etc.

      What I would actually like to see is a very early informal dispute resolution system with a judge presiding over it, with that judge having no further involvement whatsoever in the case and with parties being encouraged to represent themselves at that very early initial informal dispute resolution hearing.

      If the hearing works, then all is well and good and if not, that judge should be able to give directions that it be a condition of continuing with the case that a party be represented.

      It will go hand in hand with that order that a proper system of legal aid for representation be available.

      The reality is that the current system works for no one. As you state, litigants in person feel that the odds are stacked against them, and I can completely understand that, due to legal formalities and jargon etc. Represented parties feel they are running up huge extra costs because the person on the other side does not understand the procedures etc.

      It should also be taken as a given, but most certainly is not, that all laws should be drafted in a way that anyone of average intelligence can understand.

      Thank you very much for you comment.



      August 27, 2020 at 5:33 pm

    • Hi Jan, had the unfortunate experience of being a litigant in person on 22 occasions regarding a family and tolata matter. The complaintant was financially wealthier than me, had a brother who represented him and went through 4 different barristers. I myself had no means of being represented due to lack of financial standing. Therefore had to endure the full force of the legal system.

      Lynn Wilson

      August 28, 2020 at 8:58 pm

      • Lynn

        Thank you for this comment – and it does appear that the reason you were a litigant in person is because you could not afford to employ a lawyer, as I indicated might be the case in my previous reply to your previous comment.

        I agree 100% that it is wrong that anyone should not be represented by a lawyer because they cannot afford one, and I would make legal aid available to everyone, irrespective of their means, just as the National Health Service is, but subject to a merits test, that is that the person seeking legal aid would have to show that their case meant that they should get legal aid.

        If everyone had an interest in legal aid, because they could rely on it if they ever ended up in litigation, then I hope that people would be prepared to pay their taxes to provide legal aid.

        The actual cost of civil legal aid in this country is tiny – around £10 per person per year.



        August 31, 2020 at 10:46 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: