header-logo header-logo

04 December 2014
Issue: 7633 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Litigants in person facing miscarriages of justice

Top judges express concern over increase of litigants in person

The increase in litigants in person (LiPs) will have led to miscarriages of justice, Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, has told MPs.

Lord Dyson, giving evidence to the Justice Committee this week on the impact of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, said: “I’m sure there will be cases where a party has lost a case because he or she doesn’t have representation. It’s impossible to prove, but it would be extraordinary if there had not been some cases which were decided adversely that would have been decided the other way had the litigant been represented by a competent lawyer, it’s inevitable.”

He recalled one example told to him by a civil judge of a case where a technical legal point arose. If the claimant had been a lawyer, they would have picked up on the technical point and would have succeeded. As the claimant was unrepresented, they did not notice the point and lost their case.

Sir James Munby, head of the family division, also giving evidence, said there was less chance in the family courts of a LiP missing out because of a purely legal point. However, he added that he was “quite sure” that there are cases where judges will not spot a point that a lawyer would have picked up, and where that can “make the difference between victory and defeat”. “It would be foolish to believe there are not such cases,” he added.

Sir James told the committee that the court rules are “incredibly complex” and “the framework assumes representation”. Pre-trial preparation is very important, he said, but most LiPs “are not capable of preparing a bundle of documents… even if it is a lever arch file rather than a plastic bag, you cannot assume you have everything”.

He said a trial involving a LiP can be shorter because they tend to “dry up” in court but that the pre-trial hearing takes more time.

Lord Dyson agreed that LiPs can be “over-awed” in court, and that “they freeze, frankly”. He said problems arose at the pre-hearing stage where lawyers usually narrow the issues, focus on what matters and know what directions to ask for. LiPs need legal advice at an early stage, he added.

Issue: 7633 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll