Elt v Orsler & Anor

In a civil trial involving an ill litigant in person, fairness does not require further postponement where there is no realistic prospect of representation or improvement. The trial judge should take reasonable practical steps to assist the litigant, including appropriate adjournments and reasonable latitude. Permission to appeal may be refused where an arguable evidential issue could not affect the outcome because a separate finding necessary to the claim is unassailable.

The claimant brought a personal injury claim arising from an incident involving a cow at an agricultural show. After a four-day trial, His Honour Judge Hamilton sitting in the Luton County Court dismissed the claim against both defendants on liability and causation grounds.

The claimant, acting in person and suffering ill health, sought permission to appeal. She argued that the trial should have been adjourned or stayed, that the judge had misunderstood her account of the incident, and that he should have considered a medical report supporting causation. The application was renewed before the Court of Appeal.

Application refused. Lord Justice Tuckey held as follows.

1. Fairness of proceeding with the trial. The claimant had no realistic prospect of obtaining legal representation, and the medical evidence gave no prospect of her condition improving. In those circumstances, the judge had to allow the case to proceed rather than dismiss it without a hearing.
2. Assistance to a litigant in person. The judge adjourned early when the claimant was unable to continue, used additional time to review the documents for matters that might assist her, and gave her reasonable latitude. Complaints about the inability to re-examine herself and restrictions on questions concerning possible cattle-handling regulations did not make the trial unfair. The claimant had been able to present her case ably.
3. Alleged misunderstanding of the case. The judge understood that the claimant relied on a prolonged struggle to control the cow, rather than merely its initial movement. His rejection of the alleged duration was an assessment of the evidence, not a misunderstanding of the case. The evidence of nearby witnesses supported his conclusion that they would have noticed a struggle lasting 15 or 20 minutes.
4. Medical report and prospects of appeal. If causation had been the only issue, it would probably have been arguable that the judge should have considered Dr Tai’s report. That point could serve no purpose, however, because the finding on primary liability was unassailable. The proposed appeal therefore had no real prospect of success.

Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Renewed application for permission to appeal refused: [2001] EWCA Civ 1226.
• Luton County Court: His Honour Judge Hamilton dismissed the personal injury claim after a four-day trial on 18 January 2001.