Bakir v Downe

Litigants in person must comply with the ordinary procedural requirements applicable to all court applications. The court is not an advice bureau and does not grant procedural indulgences merely because a party is self-represented. Under Part 18 of the Family Procedure Rules, an application requires the prescribed application, fee, draft order and clearly specified relief. An undertaking given clearly in the face of the court may be effective without a separately signed general form of undertaking. It may properly be recorded in the body of the order where the court is satisfied that the recorded terms reflect the undertaking actually given.

An ex parte freezing order had been made in family proceedings. On the return date, the respondent gave an oral undertaking in court concerning funds held in two accounts. The undertaking was recorded in the order, although the respondent refused to sign a separate general form of undertaking. He later obtained variations of the arrangement before Moor J. and subsequently sent informal emails to the original judge’s clerk complaining about the order and its sealing.

The judge treated the email as an application and considered whether the undertaking was effective and whether the respondent had complied with the required procedure for making an application.

1. The respondent’s email was treated as an application to the court and was formally dismissed. The complaints were in any event academic because fresh undertakings had subsequently been given before Moor J.

2. A litigant in person is required to comply with the same procedural rules as any other litigant. Part 18 of the Family Procedure Rules requires an application, payment of the relevant fee, provision of a draft order and clear specification of the relief sought. None of those requirements had been met.

3. The court does not provide informal procedural advice to litigants in person or investigate complaints through correspondence with the judge’s clerk. Any substantive relief must be sought by a properly constituted application.

4. An undertaking given clearly in the face of the court and recorded in the transcript does not require a separately signed general form of undertaking to be legally effective. Where the terms are clear, they may be recorded in the body of the order and approved by the court. The judge was satisfied that the order accurately reflected the undertaking given by the respondent.

5. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the hearing, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed. The judgment was directed to be transcribed at public expense and placed on Bailii in an unanonymised form.