IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT
The litigants in person (LiPs) in Greenwood and another v Pringle [2024] EWHC 84 (Ch) do not appear to have got much procedurally right. But as Judge Paul Matthews pointed out, being a LiP is not a good reason for breach of a procedural order (see Barton v Wright Hassall [2018] UKSC 12 and post-Sumption, Mainline Pipelines Ltd v Phillips and another [2023] EWHC 2146 (Ch)); nor are living abroad or being elderly or impoverished.
The LiPs here were seeking, among other things, to overturn an order setting aside their statutory demand with a £4,680 costs order against them. Out of two directions given of which they were in breach, one of them (the likes of which have been known to cause even seasoned litigants to spit tacks) was for the filing of a transcript of the judgment below. They contended it was not necessary and the transcript was too expensive (they having asked for one of the
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b21f1aaf_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=754d0e82_1)
