header-logo header-logo

08 December 2023 / Stephen Gerlis
Issue: 8052 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Litigants in person
printer mail-detail

Ignorance is not bliss for LiPs

150645
Amid rising numbers of litigants in person, Stephen Gerlis relates a cautionary tale
  • A recent case, Mainline Pipelines Limited v Phillips and Phillips, highlights the difficulties litigants encounter when conducting cases themselves and the knock-on effect on other cases.

We already know the number of litigants deciding to conduct cases in person is increasing. Lack of available funding or even distrust of lawyers are some of the reasons feeding into a tsunami of unrepresented parties, which in turn is aggravating the backlog of cases facing the courts. A recent case highlights the risks being taken by a litigant in person and the limit on the assistance the court can give them.

Missing statement of truth

In Mainline Pipelines Limited v Mr and Mrs Phillips [2023] EWHC 2146 (Ch), [2023] All ER (D) 95 (Aug) Mr Phillips was representing both himself and his wife as defendants to a claim concerning the repair of a multi-fuel pipeline which ran under part of the defendants’ farm. The claimants were seeking

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll