Pearson & Ors v Ahmed (Male)

Where a litigant in person seeks disclosure or permission to appeal and the issues are insufficiently clear for the court to determine the application fairly, the court may adjourn the application to enable the litigant to obtain appropriate advice. The court may provide practical assistance, including directing access to a service able to arrange pro bono legal advice. The court should avoid determining the merits prematurely where the evidential and procedural position requires clarification.

The claimant sought disclosure of medical records and insurance-related documents in order to pursue an appeal from a judgment of His Honour Judge Playford QC in the Birmingham County Court dated 15 February 2001. Liability for the road accident was admitted, but the county court awarded limited damages on the basis of agreed medical evidence concerning the claimant’s continuing symptoms and loss of earnings.

The claimant appeared in person and alleged that his case had not been properly investigated, partly because the same insurance group had insured both parties. The central procedural issue was whether the Court of Appeal should determine his disclosure and appeal-related application immediately or first enable him to obtain legal advice.

1. Application adjourned. Lord Justice Brooke adjourned the application so that the claimant could obtain appropriate advice. The court did not determine the extent to which it could assist him or whether disclosure should be ordered.
2. The claimant’s concerns included difficulty obtaining his medical records and possible conflicts arising from the involvement of the same insurance group. The court referred to Sarwar v Alam, decided on 19 September 2001, where the court had considered before-the-event insurance and evidence of systems intended to ensure that a claimant’s case was handled independently.
3. The court indicated that the claimant should obtain advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau at the Royal Courts of Justice, which could arrange free legal assistance in appropriate cases. This would enable the issues and the appropriate procedural steps to be clarified.
4. The court observed that an appeal might not be appropriate because the county court judge may have been bound to act on the agreed medical evidence. That observation was provisional and did not determine the merits.
5. The claimant was to be supplied with a copy of the judgment at public expense.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application concerning disclosure and permission to appeal was adjourned. The court did not determine the merits of the proposed appeal.
• Birmingham County Court: His Honour Judge Playford QC awarded £500 for loss of earnings and £2,000 in general damages on 15 February 2001, relying on the agreed medical evidence.