Litigant in person not entitled to indulgence

The Court of Appeal has told a self-represented litigant that his lack of legal understanding does not entitle him to ‘extra indulgence’.

Peter Elliott succeeded earlier this year in convincing a High Court judge that he was at a significant disadvantage because of mental health problems combined with the fact he was acting for himself.

However the Court of Appeal, said the judge had had gone ‘too far’ in being sensitive to the difficulties faced by a litigant in person.

He said: ‘It seems to me that, on any view, the fact that a litigant in person “did not really understand” or “did not appreciate” the procedural courses open to him for months does not entitle him to extra indulgence.’

The issue of self-representation has taken on a higher profile with a steep increase in litigants in person following legal aid cuts.