Report comment

Sorry Wright Hassall, but I think this one will go against you.

The litigation practitioners amongst us know full well that the Courts expect us, as far as reasonably practicable, to assist unrepresented opponents. One Judge being particularly complimentary in my direction in his Judgement in a recent case involving an unrepresented Defendant that had taken twice as long as it should have done, including an adjourned additional four days at Trial, observed that the correct practice of course is to recognise that as solicitors you are first and foremost Officers of the Court, and treat an unrepresented opponent accordingly. Does that extend to pointing out errors of practice, or non-compliance with specific rules, without delay, and not taking advantage of inexperience ? I think it does and, their Lordships in the Court of Appeal notwithstanding, I suspect the Supreme Court will say precisely that.

I am to extent speaking out of turn, as I have not read the Court of Appeal Judgement, and I am not in possession of the full facts . However, in this particular case, if the claim form was served by email in time, but the unrepresented Claimant was not then immediately told that this was invalid service, enabling him to put its house in order and serve it correctly, then I suspect this will be held to be a case of a solicitor failing in his primary responsibility as an Officer of the Court.

In this particular case I suspect it will turn out ultimately to have saved them a small fortune if they had simply agreed to accept service by email.