Clarke Willmott & Clarke v Evans

A litigant in person must be given a fair opportunity to present the case, but a trial judge may control proceedings, prevent repetition and require the litigant to move to relevant points. Such interventions do not make the trial unfair where, viewed in context, they represent proper case management. The Court of Appeal will intervene only where the conduct of the trial discloses an error of law or other material error causing unfairness or significant disadvantage. Costs remain a matter for the trial judge’s discretion. A complaint about the amount of costs may require detailed assessment and will not ordinarily justify appellate intervention before that process is complete.

The appellant was formerly represented by the respondent solicitors in litigation concerning building work. She later brought a counterclaim alleging professional negligence in the conduct of their retainer. After a five-day county court trial, at which she appeared in person, the judge dismissed the counterclaim, gave judgment for the solicitors and ordered her to pay the costs.

She sought permission to appeal on the basis that the judge’s interventions, time restrictions and treatment of her evidence had denied her a fair trial. She also challenged the merits of the decision, the costs order and the amount of costs. The Court of Appeal considered whether there was any arguable error warranting intervention.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal reviewed the transcripts and concluded that the appellant had received a fair trial. The trial had been difficult, particularly because she was unrepresented and the claim concerned alleged professional negligence by solicitors.
2. A court must intervene where the conduct of a trial denies a litigant in person a fair opportunity to present the case, prevents relevant evidence from being presented or places that litigant at a significant disadvantage. The court’s obligation is subject to proper control of proceedings.
3. The trial judge was entitled to stop repetitive or irrelevant questioning, require the appellant to move to other points and have regard to the time appropriate for the case. Those interventions were a legitimate exercise of case management and did not disclose bias, unfairness or an error of law.
4. The judge’s conclusions on the merits disclosed no arguable basis for appellate intervention. The Court of Appeal would not interfere merely because the appellant disagreed with the judge’s assessment of her allegations or with the way the evidence had been managed.
5. The costs order was within the judge’s discretion. No proper basis had been shown for criticising its exercise. Any challenge to the substantial amount claimed was a matter for detailed assessment, which had not yet taken place.
6. The orders below remained undisturbed. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On appeal from Southampton County Court, the application for permission to appeal against the judgment on the counterclaim, the merits and costs was refused.
• Southampton County Court: His Honour Judge Rudd dismissed the counterclaim, found for the respondent solicitors and ordered the appellant to pay the costs.