This Practice Note sets out guidance and best practice in cases where a party is acting in person or via a McKenzie friend in public law children proceedings, including the courts’ approach to reasonable assistance to be offered to a litigant in person in putting their case and on the appointment of a McKenzie friend. General principles Every party to care proceedings is entitled to a fair hearing, and the parents and child are entitled to the protection of their Article 6 rights (right to a fair trial) under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998. There is no obligation to use a solicitor, although in care proceedings, as opposed to private law children proceedings, legal aid remains available for both the child and the parents and to anyone else with parental responsibility, regardless of means, so the majority of parents are legally represented. Litigants in person are comparatively rare in that context. In other proceedings, the legal aid position differs, see Practice Note: Eligibility

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This decision, which concerned a purported claim for professional negligence and fraud against the former administrators of a company, is indicative of the approach that the courts take to non-compliance with unless orders. An unless order specified that the claimant, Mr Gladwin, was required to file amended points of claim, an application to amend the claim form and join the correct defendants and an application pursuant to paragraph 75(6) of the Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) for permission to bring proceedings against the former administrators (who had been discharged from liability). Mr Gladwin failed to comply with the unless order. His status as a litigant person was of no assistance to him as he had the benefit of legal advice and representation for several months and his non-compliance was considered serious enough to warrant strike out of his claim. Written by Alex Akin, associate of Keidan Harrison LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This decision considers the applicability of CPR 3.1A, which deals with the manner in which judges accommodate the special needs of unrepresented litigants (or ‘litigants in person’) when the unrepresented litigant is not present at the trial. Judge Robinson decided that special provisions must be put in place to accommodate the needs of unrepresented litigants and there was a duty for judges to explore matters with witnesses. Written by Clifford Woodroffe, partner at Lee Bolton Monier-Williams.

This Practice Note sets out the issues to be taken into account when dealing with litigants in person (LIP) in civil proceedings in the context of interim applications, hearings and trial (including non-attendance and remote hearings). It also considers preparation and service of orders, consent orders and other trial-related issues such as adjournment applications, preparation of trial bundles, evidence and the use of IT at trial. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with: Making an application and service—overview, Determining interim applications—overview, Trial—overview and Judgments and orders—overview. This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see: Court specific guidance. For further guidance in relation to litigants in person, see: Parties and their representatives—overview. Interim applications and hearings CPR 3.1A considers the court's approach to case management, including conduct at hearings, where at least one party is unrepresented (see CPR

This Practice Note sets out the issues to be taken into account when dealing with litigants in person (LIP) in the context of case management considerations, including relief from sanctions, service defects, inadequate pleadings and amendments to statements of case. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with: Court's case management powers—overview, Compliance and relief from sanctions—overview and Practice Note: Drafting statements of case. This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see: Court specific guidance. For further guidance in relation to litigants in person, see: Parties and their representatives—overview. Case management generally On the whole, the CPR and other court guidance apply to litigants in person in the same way they do to represented litigants. A litigant’s lack of representation will not usually justify ‘applying to litigants a lower standard of compliance with rules or orders of the court’ (see Barton

This Practice Note outlines key issues to consider when the opposing party in civil proceedings is a litigant in person (LIP). It explains who qualifies as a litigant in person and provides useful resources to which the litigant in person may be referred to assist with the smooth running of the proceedings. NOTE: On 1 October 2026 a newly formed Business and Property Division replaces the Chancery Division—see News Analysis: The new Business and Property Division of the High Court. This Practice Note contains references to, and information derived from, the Chancery Guide. It is understood that a Business and Property Division Guide is being drafted and it is assumed this will replace the Chancery Guide. Existing links to the Chancery Guide will remain in content until a replacement is released. For further guidance in relation to litigants in person, see: Parties and their representatives—overview. What is a litigant in person? A litigant in person is an individual who conducts legal proceedings on their own behalf

This Practice Note sets out issues to be taken into account when dealing with a litigant in person in family proceedings, including procedural requirements, guidance and the requirements of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Standards and Regulations. It also sets out The Law Society guidance on litigants in person and resources that may be of assistance to a party acting in person. Following changes to the availability of legal aid made by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPOA 2012) in 2013, the number of litigants in person in family proceedings has increased—see Practice Note: Eligibility for family legal aid—Availability of legal aid. In a speech on twenty-first century family law, the then President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, said: 'In the courtroom we must adapt our processes to the new world of those who, not through choice, have to act as litigants in person.' Key findings in the Ministry of Justice report Litigants in person in private family law proceedings (November 2014) were that: • the majority of litigants in

Mediation has become an increasingly prominent feature of the civil justice system reflecting a push towards more efficient, cost-effective, and accessible dispute resolution. That said, challenges and opportunities can arise in relation to mediation when one of the parties does not have legal representation. This Practice Note sets out the issues to be taken into account when mediating with litigants in person. Arranging a mediation The Equal Treatment Bench Book is a useful resource for lawyers representing a party in a claim in which a litigant in person is involved. It expressly recognises that litigants in person face many potential difficulties in relation to compromise and negotiated settlements, noting that they may not realise it is possible or how to go about it, may not even realise that they are allowed to speak to the other side with a view to trying to reach a compromise and are unlikely to have built up any rapport with a legal representative on the other side which might open the way to negotiations. They may

This Practice Note considers the rights of audience that are available to litigants in person (LIP) to represent themselves at trial and in other hearings. It also deals with representation of litigants in person by McKenzie friends, representation of corporations by employees or McKenzie friends and the specific rules which deal with representation of litigants in person in the small claims track. This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see: Court specific guidance. For further guidance in relation to litigants in person, see: Parties and their representatives—overview. Rights of audience Rights of audience are governed by Part 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007). A litigant in person, by virtue of being a party to proceedings, has rights of audience in those proceedings and can represent themselves at trial and in other hearings (LSA 2007, s 19 and Sch

Dispute Resolution analysis: CPR 3.7A1 provides for payment by a claimant of a trial fee and sanctions for non-payment, namely automatic strike out of the claim and liability for the costs which the defendant has incurred. Mr Justice Fancourt, sitting in the High Court, considered whether the claimant was entitled to relief for inadvertent late payment. The judge concluded that the claimant should have relief because the breach was, though moderately serious, unintentional; and once aware of the default the claimant acted promptly in applying for relief which through no fault of the parties was heard by the lower court after the appointed trial date. Having regard to party conduct generally, alternative remedies, costs incurred and potential costs of bringing a new claim, the effect of refusing relief would have been disproportionately unfair in all the circumstances. However, the judge warned that the decision was not a prescription for defaulting litigants, particularly if the trial date cannot be saved, and that litigants and solicitors should take no risk with the late payment of court fees. Written by Sandip Patel QC, partner at Scarmans Solicitors.

This Deed is made on [date] Parties 1 [name], of [address] [company number] (‘A Limited’) 2 [name], of [address] [company number] (‘B Limited’) together the ‘Claimants’ Background (A) A Limited and B Limited are Claimants in a High Court action proceeding in the [Chancery Division] under Claim No. [insert number] against the Defendant[s]. The Claimants are represented in the Litigation by the Solicitors. (B) The Claimants were formerly wholly-owned subsidiaries of [Z limited]. After the commencement of the Litigation, B Limited left [Z Limited’s] ownership and is now under the control of new owners. (C) The Claimants wish to enter into an agreement regulating the conduct of the Litigation with specific reference to the sharing of legal costs, the discharge of liabilities incurred and the distribution of benefits obtained. 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Agreement, these words and expressions shall have the following meanings: Adverse Costs • Any liability incurred for the Defendant[‘s OR s'] costs, whether the subject of a summary or final assessment or payable on account and whether arising by agreement or pursuant to a court order Agreement • This Litigation Co-operation Agreement, Business Day • A day other than a Saturday, Sunday or public

Private Client analysis: The High Court held that KDS lacked capacity to conduct complex, high-value personal injury litigation and should continue to act through a litigation friend. Applying sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), the court accepted expert evidence that, although KDS could understand information when appropriately supported and could make straightforward everyday decisions, his cognitive and psychiatric impairments prevented him from reliably retaining, using and weighing information required for litigation decisions. The judgment illustrates the decision-specific and time-specific nature of capacity and the importance of assessing whether reasonable adjustments can enable effective decision-making. Practitioners should keep litigation capacity under review where a claimant’s presentation may change.