Litigant in person meaning

In this issue: Key DR developments Claims and remedies Cost and funding Case management Scottish Dispute Resolution New content Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Key DR developments Court information HMCTS updates Form N215 certificate of service HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has issued a revised English Form N215 Certificate of Service for civil proceedings, which also brings in a new statement of truth. While the layout has been updated, the details required remain unchanged, with extra notes added to assist with completing the form. For further detail, see: HMCTS updates Form N215 certificate of service—LNB News 27/01/2026 36. Additional permanent courtrooms to boost capacity The government will make four former Nightingale Courts in Fleetwood, Telford, Chichester and Cirencester permanent, creating 11 additional courtrooms across England and Wales to increase capacity for criminal, family and civil work and help cut delays. For further detail, see:...

Taiwo v Homelets of Bath Ltd [2025] EWHC 3173 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? For the purposes of CJCA 2015, s 57, a claim seeking damages for anxiety stemming from harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is to be treated as a personal injury claim. Consequently, where such a claim is held to be fundamentally dishonest, it must be dismissed unless the court is persuaded that dismissal would lead to substantial injustice. Where fundamental dishonesty is established, the court may: dismiss the whole claim, including components to which no dishonesty is attributed award indemnity costs disapply QOCS protection in respect of enforcement make adverse costs orders for hopeless or abusive appeal conduct The judgment also underlines that persisting with meritless grounds of appeal, particularly in an undisciplined fashion involving repeated applications and iterative documents, can warrant both adverse costs orders and the imposition of a civil restraint order. Finally, lawyers who provide...

Serafin v Malkiewicz and others [2020] UKSC 23 What are the practical implications of this case? Lessons from the unfair trial aspect include guidance for judges and practitioners on engaging with a litigant in person (LIP). Judges owe duties, and lawyers have professional duties to the court. Working with LIPs can be challenging, exasperating and take considerable time—sometimes more so than dealing with overly combative solicitors. Clients may struggle to understand why you appear to ‘assist’ an unrepresented opponent. Yet justice demands that those without representation are treated with politeness and dignity, and are given at least basic assistance and direction to find their way through the court process. Only then can justice truly be achieved for all involved in the process as a whole. On the DA 2013, s 4 defence, the Supreme Court’s judgment sets out principles which, though not strictly determinative of the appeal, are crucial in returning the statutory defence to its proper status. Those principles were crafted to aid future cases, and they...

This Practice Note outlines the required contents of a Part 36 offer, identifies to whom the offer must be directed, and highlights the additional stipulations for a defendant’s Part 36 proposal. It also explains how to make a Part 36 offer confined to part of the claim or focused on a specific issue within the claim. The Note addresses offers in proceedings with multiple parties, the need for a relevant period of at least 21 days, and the treatment of interest. It further considers situations involving a litigant in person, as well as the inclusion of a non-monetary element within a Part 36 offer... What a Part 36 offer must include A compliant Part 36 offer does not have to be presented in a letter; a party may instead use Form N242A (CPR PD 36, para 1.1)...

This Practice Note looks at circumstances in which the conduct of a trial can render it unfair at common law, concentrating on judicial behaviour and procedural irregularity in particular. Claims that a trial was unfair are commonly pursued on appeal on the footing that the outcome is unjust due to a serious procedural or other irregularity in the lower court proceedings under CPR 52.21(3)(b). For further material on appeals, see: Civil appeals: general and preliminary considerations—overview and Practice Note: Grounds for appealing and preliminary considerations. This Practice Note does not address the notion of a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ‘ECHR’). The common law rules sit alongside, yet continue to operate independently of, Article 6 of the ECHR. For guidance on that topic, see Practice Note: Article 6—Right to a fair trial. When will a trial be unfair? In Serafin v Malkiewicz, the Supreme Court examined whether the trial was unfair owing to the first‑instance judge’s manner of dealing...

This Practice Note sets out guidance on what amounts to a consent order or a judgment, when court approval is needed to enter into a consent order, the required form of a consent order, and the circumstances in which parties can seek to vary or set one aside. It also addresses the court’s discretion to extend time for complying with consent orders. The Practice Note explains how the relevant provisions of the CPR should be interpreted and applied. You should also consider whether any additional court-specific requirements are engaged—see the main section: Court specific guidance below... What are consent orders and judgments? A consent order is a court judgment or order reflecting terms agreed between the parties. Depending on the breadth of the consent order or judgment, and whether any party appears as a litigant in person, the court may enter and seal it. In other cases, the court’s approval is necessary. For further guidance, see: without court approval and needing court approval below...

In numerous matters, one or both sides in a legal dispute appear without lawyers, representing themselves in the proceedings. This occurs for a range of reasons; frequently, the cause is an inability to obtain legal representation because of limited personal finances. Every section of the legal profession, under its respective code of conduct and in line with its duties to the court, is obliged to treat litigants in person with fairness and respect. In addition, the Judicial College Guidance offers further direction to the judiciary on the role of the judge when a case features a litigant in person within proceedings of this kind...