Practice: Do it yourself – any further guidance since Tinkler v Elliot?

1 Chancery Lane | The Commercial Litigation Journal | July/August 2013 #50
Thomas Crockett reviews developments in the treatment of litigants in person Courts ought to be mindful of making provision for litigants in person, whom are likely to face an inherent litigation disadvantage in the overwhelming majority of cases. In recent years the courts have seen a rise in the number of people litigating without professional …

Continue reading "Practice: Do it yourself – any further guidance since Tinkler v Elliot?"

This post is only available to members.

Practice: Doing it yourself

1 Chancery Lane | The Commercial Litigation Journal | November/December 2012 #46
Thomas Crockett looks at recent judicial guidance on litigants in person In Tinkler, Sharpe J concluded that the specific facts of the case, none less than the fact that Mr Elliott was a LIP, allowed her to exercise her discretion to find that Mr Elliott had acted ‘promptly’ for the purposes of CPR 39.3(5). It …

Continue reading "Practice: Doing it yourself"

This post is only available to members.