- Court declines to extend the Chorley principle to a solicitor acting for themselves as a litigant in person (JH v CH & SAP)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The court held that a solicitor, the second respondent, acting as a litigant in person, could not recover their usual professional rates for the work undertaken, despite the fact this was being done during working hours and with the knowledge of her employer (KSN solicitors). The second respondent was not a partner and had not instructed her firm to act for her. The fact that the second respondent asserted that she was a litigant in person and confirmed that she had not instructed KSN was fatal to the claim for an assessment under the Chorley principle. In all the reported cases quoted, the solicitor litigant was acting through their own practice or firm or had instructed a third-party firm and had relieved that firm of doing some of the work by doing it themselves. Thus, the solicitor party was not acting in person and was not a true litigant in person. Written by Nicholas Lee, costs lawyer and managing director, at Paragon Costs Solutions.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial