The High Court has delivered a firm reminder to litigants in person (persons without legal representation) that the law will not be moulded for their convenience. In the recent decision of Reynard - v- Fox, Mr Reynard, a litigant in person, stated that he had failed to follow the correct procedure as ‘he did not have a detailed knowledge’ of the regulations.
Mr Reynard had pursued a claim for breach of contract and negligence in relation to the conduct of an insolvency practitioner. Mr Fox, an insolvency practitioner had been appointed as a trustee to deal with Mr Reynard’s bankruptcy proceedings. During the legal process, Mr Reynard requested the Court’s permission to bring a claim in accordance with section 304 of the Insolvency Act 1986. His Honour Judge Paul Matthews ruled Mr Reynard’s claim should be struck out as the application to comply with regulations was submitted too late and the Court were not willing to provide any preferential treatment to Mr Reynard.
The Defendant’s Solicitor applied for the claim to be struck out due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with a Court Order in November 2016. Whilst His Honour Judge Paul Matthews rejected this argument, the claim was struck out due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with the civil procedure regulations.
The Court referred to the recent ruling in Barton - v- Wright Hassall and confirmed that the rules provide a framework within which both Claimant’s and Defendant’s should comply. Both parties have rights and regulations that should be complied with and neither party should be offered any leniency.
If you wish to discuss a query relating to a disputed matter please do not hesitate to contact our Dispute Resolution Department 0207 842 0800 to arrange a convenient time to discuss your enquiry.
This article is not a definitive statement of the law. It is designed as a free update on the law at the time of publishing. It is not a substitute for legal advice on specific facts and circumstances. BakerLaw LLP and/or the writer accepts no liability or responsibility for reliance on this article and recommends that you seek independent legal advice on your specific circumstances prior to taking any steps.
Comments