B (Litigants In Person: Timely Service of Documents), Re

Where one party is represented and the other is a litigant in person, the court should ordinarily direct timely service of the documents required for the final hearing. Under Practice Direction 27A, those documents should normally be served at least three days before the hearing, with the method of service specified. Earlier service may be required where the litigant in person is not fluent in English. Where time permits, the court should consider requiring translations of key documents. If late service creates a real risk of unfairness, an adjournment should be considered until the position is corrected. These measures give practical effect to the fair-trial right to know the case to be met and to equality of arms.

The judgment arose from Hague Convention child abduction proceedings in which the respondent mother was a litigant in person, did not speak English fluently and appeared without an interpreter at an earlier hearing. The applicant was represented by specialist counsel. Although statements and a Cafcass report had been filed in advance, the applicant’s position statement and four law reports were served on the mother only at the start of the two-day final hearing. The court had not previously directed timely service of documents. The central issue was what procedural directions should ordinarily be made to prevent late service causing unfairness to a litigant in person.

1. Fair trial and equality of arms. The right to a fair trial under Article 6 includes a right to know the case that must be met. The disparity between a represented party and an unrepresented party, particularly where the latter is unfamiliar with English and the legal system, may create substantial unfairness. Late service aggravates that disadvantage by removing the opportunity to obtain advice or explanation before the hearing.
2. Timely service. The court should normally direct, as a matter of course, that the Practice Direction 27A documents be served on a litigant in person at least three days before the final hearing. The order should specify the method of service, usually email. The direction should be adapted to the circumstances of the case, and earlier service may be appropriate where the litigant in person is not fluent in English.
3. Translation and adjournment. Where time permits, the court should consider directing that key documents be served with a translation. If late service may cause genuine unfairness, the court should consider adjourning the hearing until the procedural defect has been remedied.
4. Practice Direction 27A. The requirements in Practice Direction 27A are minimum requirements and are subject to specific directions in the individual case. The court must therefore use its case-management powers to protect the litigant in person’s procedural rights. No separate order was recorded beyond the guidance given in the judgment.

First-instance guidance in the High Court (Family Division). No appellate history is stated in the judgment.