Procedural Barriers Facing Litigants in Person in the UK – Analysis and Recommendations

A Litigant in Person (LiP) is an individual who represents themselves in court without a lawyer. In the UK, the number of LiPs has risen sharply in recent years, largely due to the high cost of legal representation and cuts to legal aid. Nearly three-quarters of civil and family cases now involve at least one self-represented party.1 However, navigating the legal system without professional help is daunting. LiPs face numerous procedural barriers – from the complexity of court rules and forms to potential judicial bias (or the perception of it), lack of access to legal information and advice, and systemic hurdles that inherently favour parties with legal representation. This report analyses each of these challenges with reference to specific rules and case law, and provides recommendations for LiPs to navigate the system more effectively.

Complex Court Procedures

Understanding and complying with court procedure is one of the greatest difficulties for LiPs. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), practice directions, court forms, and evidence requirements are written in formal legal language and assume a certain level of legal knowledge. Research shows that LiPs often struggle with basic procedural tasks – for example, understanding what evidence is required, how to fill out forms, and which facts are legally relevant.2 Many LiPs report feeling “intimidated, confused by the language and often surprised by the formality” of court proceedings.3 They may not realise, for instance, that they must serve documents on the other party in a particular way or that strict filing deadlines apply. Serious procedural mistakes, such as choosing the wrong cause of action, missing limitation periods, or failing to submit witness statements on time, can derail a case before the merits are even considered.?

Compounding the problem is the principle that courts generally hold LiPs to the same procedural standards as lawyers. Historically, judges might have been more lenient regarding an unrepresented person’s technical errors, but there is now a firm expectation of equal compliance. The Overriding Objective in CPR 1.1 and the rule on relief from sanctions in CPR 3.9 were tightened in 2013 to “enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders”, and judges are instructed to apply this strictly “to all parties, whether represented or not.”? Being a LiP does not excuse procedural failings. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court have repeatedly affirmed this principle. In Tinkler v Elliott (2012), for example, a LiP who missed a deadline received indulgence from a High Court judge, but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision, stressing that CPR requirements are “plain language and understandable by lawyers and non-lawyers alike.”? Similarly, in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12, the Supreme Court refused to rescue a LiP who had improperly served a claim form via email, thereby missing the service deadline. By a majority, the Court held that his claim was time-barred due to invalid service, clarifying that there is no lower standard of procedural compliance for LiPs.? Granting special leniency would be unfair to the opposing side and undermine the integrity of the rules.? In short, procedural complexity is a major hurdle for LiPs, and the courts’ strict stance means that even innocent mistakes can have drastic consequences, including a case being struck out. As one costs judge commented, although there may be “sympathy for a litigant in person trying to deal with these rules,” that does not prevent their enforcement.?

Judicial Bias and Impartiality Concerns

LiPs also worry about judicial bias or unfair treatment. This concern can manifest in two ways: fear that a judge may favour the professionally presented arguments of a represented party, and conversely the possibility that a judge might overcompensate in seeking to assist the LiP, thereby appearing biased in their favour. UK judges are obliged to remain scrupulously impartial, but one-sided representation places extra demands on them to maintain both actual and perceived fairness. Research confirms that having one party unrepresented presents a particular challenge for the judiciary, requiring them to manage the hearing so as to avoid any suggestion of bias.1? Judges may give more weight—perhaps unconsciously—to counsel’s clearer, legally framed submissions, while also acknowledging that LiPs may need additional help to participate effectively.

The Judicial College’s Equal Treatment Bench Book warns judges not to treat LiPs as “an unwelcome problem” and instructs them to ensure LiPs have “every reasonable opportunity to present their case.”11 In practice, this can mean using simpler language, exercising “considerable patience,” and avoiding interrupting LiPs as quickly as they might interrupt a lawyer.12 Nevertheless, implicit bias or frustration can surface, especially if a LiP—unfamiliar with formal etiquette—wanders off-topic or becomes emotional. Meanwhile, represented parties sometimes feel disadvantaged if they sense the judge is granting LiPs excessive latitude. Ultimately, judicial professionalism is relied upon to protect fairness, yet the power imbalance and courtroom formality can still create a subjective sense of bias for LiPs, even absent any deliberate unfairness.

Lack of Access to Legal Resources and Advice

A further key challenge for LiPs is the lack of access to legal resources, information, and advice that would ordinarily be provided by a solicitor or barrister. Most people become LiPs because they “do not qualify for public funding… [and] cannot afford a solicitor,” especially after extensive cuts to legal aid introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO).13 LASPO removed or reduced legal aid in many civil and family cases, creating a widespread advice gap. Citizens Advice found that local advice and community law centres lost over 77% of their public funding as a result, forcing many to close or drastically reduce services.1? Unsurprisingly, there was a surge in self-representation—particularly in family courts and lower-value civil claims.1

Without a lawyer’s expertise, LiPs confront a steep learning curve in understanding the relevant law and procedures. Although the Civil and Family Procedure Rules and practice directions are publicly available online, many LiPs do not realise such guidance exists, or they struggle to interpret it.1? Court staff can only give neutral information, such as which form to use, and cannot provide legal advice.1? By contrast, a represented party can rely on a solicitor to draft pleadings, research case law, and handle cross-examination. A LiP must attempt all these tasks alone, often while juggling a job or family responsibilities. Individuals with limited literacy, language barriers, or disabilities find it even harder. This resource gap means LiPs often appear in court uncertain of the law, unsure what evidence to submit, or unclear on how best to question witnesses.

Systemic Hurdles Favouring Represented Parties

Aside from specific rules and potential bias, LiPs grapple with systemic and structural hurdles that inherently favour parties with legal representation. The adversarial court system of England and Wales presupposes representation, relying on formal pleadings, legal argument, and structured evidence. A solicitor or barrister, through training and experience, knows how to frame legal points, cite authorities, comply with disclosure obligations, and follow courtroom conventions. A LiP, no matter how intelligent, lacks that professional grounding. As a result, inequality of arms arises: the represented side can present a well-organised and thoroughly researched case, whereas the LiP may face procedural or evidential pitfalls. Judges do their best to mitigate this imbalance, but must also remain impartial.

For example, a solicitor normally ensures that essential documents, witness statements, and expert reports are submitted on time; a LiP may fail to gather or file vital evidence. Even routine procedural steps—like drafting an order after a hearing—come more easily to lawyers, placing LiPs at a disadvantage. LiPs also commonly feel outmatched during negotiations or mediation sessions when the other side has counsel.1? In court, a represented opponent may use procedural tactics—such as making timely objections—that the LiP is unaware of. Additionally, resource asymmetry remains stark: represented litigants have a legal team to manage deadlines and attend hearings, while a LiP might struggle simply to arrange time off work.

The costs regime further exacerbates this disparity. If a LiP loses, they may be ordered to pay the other side’s legal costs, often amounting to thousands of pounds. If they win, their ability to recover costs for personal time and effort is very limited, unlike the situation for a winning party who had professional legal representation. One recent case saw a successful LiP mishandle post-trial cost procedures, ultimately being held liable for some of the opponent’s costs—highlighting the pitfalls of complex cost rules.? The threat of adverse costs can push LiPs into unfavourable settlements. In short, the complexity of the system naturally rewards those who can “work” it effectively, leaving LiPs structurally disadvantaged.

Recommendations for LiPs to Navigate Procedural Barriers

Despite these challenges, Litigants in Person can take practical steps to help level the playing field:

1. Educate Yourself on Procedure and Law Familiarise yourself with the court rules relevant to your case (e.g. the Civil Procedure Rules for civil claims, the Family Procedure Rules for family cases). These rules and related guidance are available online or at court offices. Look for official leaflets specifically designed for LiPs—for instance, those published by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS)—as well as plain-English guides from charities like Advicenow (Law for Life). If you are unsure about a form or deadline, ask the court office (acknowledging they cannot provide legal strategy). If you are confused in a hearing, politely request clarification from the judge, who would prefer you to proceed correctly rather than in ignorance.
2. Seek Legal Advice or Assistance Early (Even in Limited Form) Even if you cannot afford a solicitor or barrister for the entire case, try to access free or reduced-cost advice. Local Citizens Advice bureaux or law centres often hold drop-in sessions, and some charities run pro bono “support through court” programmes. If you have a small budget, consider “unbundled” legal services by instructing a solicitor or direct access barrister for specific tasks, such as drafting a document or providing an initial case assessment. A single meeting may help you avoid serious procedural mistakes later on.
3. Utilise a McKenzie Friend or Support Person A McKenzie friend (often a volunteer, friend, or family member) can sit with you in court, take notes, organise papers, and quietly offer reminders or advice.1? They cannot usually address the judge on your behalf, but they can be invaluable for emotional and practical support. If using a paid McKenzie friend, ensure they understand and respect the limited role. Inform the court in advance if possible.
4. Stay Organised and Meet Deadlines Procedural time limits apply equally to all parties. Maintain a calendar of key dates—such as filing and service deadlines—and if you need more time, apply for an extension before the deadline elapses. Use checklists and (where available) templates to ensure your documents meet court requirements. Pay particular attention to the rules on serving documents, since incorrect service is a frequent cause of problems. If the opposing side serves large amounts of paperwork, tackle it methodically and get advice on anything confusing. The courts rarely accept unfamiliarity as an excuse for non-compliance.?
5. Focus Your Case and Evidence Without a lawyer to filter out irrelevancies, LiPs can unintentionally submit excessive or peripheral material. Identify the key legal issues—for example, whether a contract existed and was breached—and gather evidence directly relevant to those points (the contract, related emails, witness statements, etc.). Summarise your case in a short chronology or bullet-point outline to keep your submissions on track. At the hearing, have your main points and cross-examination questions written down so you do not forget crucial details or wander off-topic.
6. Maintain Professionalism in Court While you are not expected to match a barrister’s formality, basic courtroom etiquette strengthens your credibility. Address the judge appropriately (“Your Honour” in the County Court; “My Lord/Lady” or “Sir/Madam” in the High Court); speak calmly and avoid interrupting. If you do not understand a question or a procedural step, politely ask the judge for clarification. Judges appreciate a LiP who respects the process—this can help neutralise any subconscious scepticism. You have the right to a fair hearing, but meeting the judge halfway with courteous behaviour and organisation will ensure your case is heard properly.
7. Consider Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) If formal court proceedings feel overwhelming, explore mediation or negotiation. A skilled mediator can help the parties find a mutually acceptable outcome in a more relaxed setting. However, do seek at least some legal advice on the potential merits or pitfalls of any settlement, so you are not pushed into an unfair agreement. In many family disputes, mediation is strongly encouraged—or even required—before a final hearing. ADR can save considerable time, cost, and stress, but do not agree to terms you feel are unjust merely out of fear of court procedures.

By following these measures, LiPs can prepare more effectively and mitigate some of the disadvantages imposed by the system. Preparation, self-education, and judicious use of available support networks are key to overcoming procedural barriers.

Conclusion

Litigants in Person face steep challenges in the UK’s adversarial legal system. Complex court procedures, possible judicial bias, limited legal resources, and systemic advantages enjoyed by represented parties all combine to leave LiPs on difficult terrain. Case law—from Tinkler v Elliott to Barton v Wright Hassall LLP—makes it clear that LiPs must abide by the same procedural standards as legally represented litigants, with courts disinclined to grant leniency for mistakes.? ? ? Yet the judiciary also recognises the importance of fair treatment for LiPs and has issued guidance—such as the Equal Treatment Bench Book—on offering assistance within the bounds of impartiality.11 12

Ultimately, improving access to justice for LiPs requires continuing efforts: simplifying court forms, expanding legal aid or free advisory services, and perhaps introducing more inquisitorial processes for LiP-heavy cases. In the meantime, individuals who must represent themselves can use the practical tips set out above to bolster their prospects. While the scales of justice may not be perfectly balanced, a well-prepared, informed, and proactive LiP can significantly improve their experience and outcomes. The fundamental objective remains that every person—represented or not—be heard and judged on the merits, and this is best achieved when LiPs are given realistic opportunities to present their case on an equal footing.

Disclaimer

This publication is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your situation, please consult a qualified legal professional.

Footnotes

1. House of Commons Justice Committee, LAS0012 - Evidence on Impact of Changes to Civil Legal Aid under LASPO (Written Evidence, 2014) https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/50349/pdf accessed 27 February 2025.
2. Ministry of Justice, Litigants in Person: A Literature Review (2013) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c451b40f0b62dffde0f83/litigants-in-person-literature-review.pdf accessed 27 February 2025.
3. ibid.
4. Judicial College, Equal Treatment Bench Book: Litigants in Person (finalised) (2016) https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/judicial-college/ETBB_LiP+_finalised_.pdf accessed 27 February 2025, 1–2.
5. ibid 3.
6. East Anglian Chambers, ‘Litigants in Person: Beware’ (2012) https://ealaw.co.uk/litigants-in-person-beware accessed 27 February 2025.
7. Supreme Court, Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12, judgment https://www.burges-salmon.com/news-and-insight/legal-updates/no-special-treatment-for-litigants-in-person accessed 27 February 2025.
8. Burges Salmon, ‘No special treatment for litigants in person’ (2018) https://www.burges-salmon.com/news-and-insight/legal-updates/no-special-treatment-for-litigants-in-person accessed 27 February 2025.
9. Free Movement, ‘Litigant in person to pay thousands in costs after falling foul of procedural rules’ (2021) https://freemovement.org.uk/litigant-in-person-to-pay-thousands-in-costs-after-falling-foul-of-procedural-rules accessed 27 February 2025.
10. Ministry of Justice (n 2).
11. The Law Society Gazette, ‘Don’t treat litigants in person as an unwelcome problem, judges told’ (2018) https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/dont-treat-litigants-in-person-as-an-unwelcome-problem-judges-told/5065052.article accessed 27 February 2025.
12. Judicial College (n 4) 5–7.
13. Judicial College (n 4) 1.
14. Judicial College (n 4) 7.
15. ibid 1–2.
16. ibid 8–9.
17. Ministry of Justice (n 2) 9–10.
18. Judicial College (n 4) 10–11.