[2018] UKSC 12
, that no special concessions or assistance should be given to litigants-in-person. In that case at [18] Lord Sumption stated: “Any advantage enjoyed by a litigant-in-person imposes a corresponding disadvantage on the other side, which may be significant if it affects the latter’s legal rights ”30.On the other hand, in a financial remedy case the court exercises a quasi-inquisitorial function. It would be a dereliction of its inquisitorial duty if it allowed a case to be decided under procedural rules and customs which prevented a just decision being rendered on a particular set of facts because a litigant-in-person has, for whatever reason, chosen not to advance the relevant arguments applicable to those facts.29.For obvious reasons, naturally I’m humbly delighted he came to the same conclusion as I had in chambers days earlier. Its a concern of and for many family court judges, especially common law, worldwide
- Reserved Written Judgment of Deputy District Judge David Hodson
- Introduction
- The summary elements of the case itself
- Costs amounts
- Should I intervene at all?
- [2022] EWCA Civ 772
- [2018] UKSC 12
- First aspect: How to deal with outstanding legal costs in the sharing exercise
- element: Costs orders between the parties in a sharing case
- Third element: Bringing back the “advanced” costs already paid out
- A few examples
- Conclusion
- Postscript