Fri07282017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

PRACTICE: Doing it yourself

23 November 2012  

Thomas Crockett looks at recent judicial guidance on litigants in person

It is not an easy task for members of the judiciary to uphold the Overriding Objective as enshrined in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) where there is a clear inequality of arms between the parties in terms of legal representation. ‘To deal with cases justly’ includes ‘ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing’ and that cases are ‘dealt with fairly’. The question as to how courts should best apply this ideal, where one or more parties is unrepresented, is not usually answered uniformly. The Court of Appeal in the recent case of Tinkler v Elliott [2012] proffers some useful guidance in respect of this issue.

 

 

Additional Info

  • Case(s) Referenced:

    Teinaz v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2002] ICR 1471

    Tinkler & anor v Elliott [2012] EWHC 600 (QB); [2012] EWCA Civ 1289

    Watson v Bluemoor Properties Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1875