Procedural inaccuracies and litigants in person

Clyde & Co have recently defended two cases via strike out involving litigants in person. The cases demonstrate that, although the Court will allow a litigant in person some leeway, they are still required to comply with the relevant procedural rules.

Case 1 

In the first case, the Claimant issued a claim via the online money claims system. The Claimant’s case was essentially that a clinician made inappropriate sexual comments towards her during the course of an outpatient clinic review.  

Following service of the claim form, Clyde & Co made an application for: 

• strike out of the claim (pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a)); and/or
• summary judgment (pursuant to CPR 24.2).

This was on the basis that the Claimant had not pleaded any cause of action (either in negligence or contract) and the claim for personal injuries was not supported by medical evidence, as required by Practice Direction 16, paragraph 4.3. Furthermore, even if the Court accepted the Claimant’s analysis of the clinician’s motives (which seemed unlikely) it was difficult to see how this would or could give rise to a cause of action. 

At the hearing the judge was initially minded to make an unless order, giving the Claimant time to address the defects in her claim. However, submissions were made on behalf of the Defendant that an unless order would serve no useful purpose given that the claim had been brought as a money claim and, as constituted, any amendment could not enable the Claimant to bring a claim for negligence (where damages had to be assessed) within the context of the money claim online system (Practice Direction 7C). Consequently, the judge proceeded to strike out the claim and the Defendant was awarded costs.

Case 2

In the second claim involving a litigant in person, it was alleged that as a result of the Defendant’s failure to send a discharge summary to the Deceased’s GP, the GP was unaware of significant changes in the Deceased’s condition and, as a result, regular monitoring of blood pressure, which was important and necessary, was not undertaken.  It was alleged that as a result of the breach of duty, the Deceased suffered a stroke which would have been avoided had his blood pressure been properly monitored. Sadly, the Deceased died. 

A Letter of Response was served which denied liability (based on expert evidence) and thereafter the Claimant issued and served proceedings without Particulars of Claim.

Clyde & Co provided to the Claimant a consent order for signature, proposing that there be an extension of time for service of the particulars of claim and supporting documentation. The consent order was not returned by the Claimant for filing with the Court. The Claimant subsequently served Particulars of Claim 16 weeks late and without any medical evidence. The Particulars of Claim also contained new allegations not raised at the pre-action stage. 

Clyde & Co made an application seeking strike out and/or summary judgement. The key issues being:

• Particulars of Claim served late with no application for relief from sanctions  - CPR 7.4(1)(b).
• Proceedings served without medical evidence - Pantelli Associates Ltd v Corporate City Developments Number Two Ltd [2011] PNLR 12
• Allegations changed from the initial Letter of Claim.

The Court ordered retrospective relief from sanctions in respect of the Claimant’s late service of the particulars of claim and made an Unless Order that the Claimant serve medical evidence in support of the allegations. 

The Claimant failed to comply with that Unless Order and subsequently issued an application seeking further time to comply. The Court took a firm approach and dismissed the application on the grounds the Claimant had not provided any reasonable explanation for failing to comply with the Order. 

The Claimant filed a further application seeking relief from sanctions and a 6 month extension to enable the Claimant further time to obtain medical evidence. In the alternative the Claimant sought a stay of proceedings and suggested that the Defendant had not complied with the pre-action protocol. Clyde & Co argued that:

• The Claimant still did not hold supportive expert evidence in relation to the allegations set out in the Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim - Magee -v- Willmott [2020] EWHC 1378 (QB).
• The Claimant had already been provided with adequate time (initial letter of claim submitted in 2022) as such the Defendant and the Court could have no confidence that the necessary evidence would be obtained, whether in the next 6 months or at all.
• Consequently, the Claimant was unable to establish negligence on the part of the Defendant and the claim and further application amounted to an abuse of process.

At the final hearing the Court dismissed the Claimant’s further application and the claim remained struck out as a consequence of the Claimant’s failure to comply with the previous unless order.

Summary

Both the above cases highlight the difficulties that can be encountered dealing with procedural defects when a claim is brought by a litigant in person. The pace of litigation can be slowed, and the costs are often increased. Whilst the Court will allow litigants in person significant latitude, there is still an expectation that claims must be properly particularised, and the Civil Procedure Rules followed.