How to stop litigants in person going mad: more funds needed

  • Print
  • Comments (23)

Readers' comments (23)

  • @ Paul Heathcote

    You need to send your complaint to the Office for Judicial Complaints, not to HM Courts Service. It is the OJC that has jurisdiction over a judge not HMCS.

    Write a letter setting out how long you have been waiting for the formal judgement and ask the OJC to intervene.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Having just represented myself in a judicial review oral permission hearing at the RCJ, I am left with a sense of contempt for the Court's obvious bias against LIPs. My case was not a difficult one, dealing in very clear and elementary concepts of law. But my argument was ignored. The hearing was a sham. I'd like to know how many times in the history of the Court a LIP has ever beaten a QC in argument, regardless of the real merits of the LIP's claim. I suspect it is a tiny number. The LIP is set up to fail by the system regardless of the merits of their case. Yet another injustice has been swept under the dusty old judicial carpet. I simply cannot afford to risk an appeal, and have been hit with 5000 pounds in costs.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Some of the comments above justify the article 100%. In any case there is going to be a winner and a loser. Trouble is some losers cannot accept that the problem is their case and decide that they must have lost because of fraud. Hence the vexatious litigants in the article.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The position of LiPs is a no brainer.
    Litigation is a two horse race. Lawyers are the pro jockey ridden horses. LiPs are the donkeys.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The two anonymooses above are typical of the blinkered arrogance that passes for expertise in the legal profession. I pity their clients (for they are probably lawyers).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nice topic and comments a
    Litigants in person should, unless they have good
    reason for not doing so:
    (1) prepare a written summary of their argument in the same circumstances as those in which a represented party is required to produce a skeleton argument;
    (2) prepare a bundle of documents in the same way that a represented party is required to produce a bundle of documents; and
    (3) be prepared to put forward their argument within a limited time if they are directed to do so by the court.
    [url=http://www.city-lawyers.co.uk]Car Accident Lawyer[/url]
    This means that litigants in person should identify in advance of the hearing those points which they consider to be their strongest points, and that they should put those points at the forefront of their oral and written submissions to the court.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am currently a Litigant in Person. I have no choice. I am being sued and I do not have the money to defend myself. I made a mistake before the directions hearing because instead of giving me the case management information 7 days before the lawyers for the claimant ambushed me with 40 pages on |Tuesday, 60 pages on Wednesday and another 40 on Thursday at 4 pm when the hesring was at 10 am on the Friday 250 miles away. I was on the phone to the court all week who told me that at 4pm on Thursday they had not had the Case management informstion. It was decided that there was no way the judge could hear it in 30 minutes and I would make a round trip of 500 miles for a case to be adjourned. I therefore, made the appropriate applications and wrote a letter explaining and asked to be excused. Result. Judge gave them everything they asked for. Lawyer quoted me £5-6000 to have that set aside and draft a new defense and counterclaim. Within 5 weeks I'd spent £16,000 and when they wanted £2,000 to type a document list I took it back and defended myself at Leeds Mercantile Court for the Liability Hearing. Once again I was stitched up by the lawyers. They gave me a sketchy Bundle index and I couldn't tell what of my defence was in it. When the bundle arrived at 2pm on Friday befiore the Monday hearing, it was poorly indexed and the little of my defence that was in there was scattered randomly in a file of 500 pages of rubbish. It took me 34 hours to index it and cross reference it and create my own bundle of the missing evidence. Their barrister turned up late and unprepared expecting me to have no defence. He actually put that on his skeleton argument. The result was that the hearing was adjourned at my request. They are running up costs of £100,000 fro a £190,000 claim which is not valid. If it were valid it would be around £25,000 but they have been warned that even if they win liability and are found not to be entitled to damages that they will not get costs. Never-the-less they continue - largely driven by the conditional fee lawyer who is seriously taking this personally and sends me personal attacks and threats under the heading of without prejudice. Am I a nuisance to the court. Possibly. The judge was extremely fair and patient but what on earth am I supposed to do if I can't defend myself. These people almost bankrupt me. The person who sold me the franchise didn't even own it - He is a disqualified director until 2012. When I refused to continue because I could no longer even afford to put diesel in my car, they sued me for £190,000 future lost profits despite putting another franchisee in my territory. So the question for me is not, how to stop Litigants in Person but How to stop con men using the legal system to further destroy their victims.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In my experience I found that qualified legal representatives dont play fair or follow the rules. I have conducted serveral cases on my own and in my experience the solicitors representing the other party could not comply with court order..... So its not all about being legally qualified... its how you present your case.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This site is designed to assist all LiP's.
    But we also need all of your help!

    http://bit.ly/help4lips

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As has been said, the above posts prove the point the article is raising.
    (1) The public seem genuinely to believe that lawyers don't actually do anything. Despite years of training and years of experience that a qualified litigator or advocate would have, the general gist seems to be that you are equal in ability to this if you read a forum on the internet.
    (2) The public also have this idea that the judge is the big mummy or daddy there to look at the case and find "justice". They simply don't grasp that this is an adversarial system with a neutral umpire in which a party can (and should) take whatever advantage they see as possible.
    On any court forms sent to litigants in person they should spell these things out:-
    "Dear litigant. 1.Law is complicated. It is supposed to be and it has to be. If you don't understand it, it is not a conspiracy against you because the judge used to play golf with the father or someone who used to work in the hospital you were employed at. 2. The judge isn't - and is not supposed to be "on your side""

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (23)