Litigants in person: part 2

A barrister was once undertaking a case against a litigant in person. The case was about a "closure order". What this meant was that the local authority had decided that the particular premises were in such a state of disrepair and poor condition that they were not fit for human habitation and so should not be occupied. These were proceedings which were brought against the owner of the property. Usually the purpose of pursuing a closure order was to stop the property being used to be let out to tenants. From the point of view of the landlord, that is obviously extremely damaging to the value of any investment.

Before commencing the case there was a site visit. This often happens in cases where it is relevant to look at what the property or the scene looks like. In criminal cases this will be referred to as going on a view. Sometimes actually seeing something is in reality so much more compelling and informative than looking at photographs. Indeed, sometimes the truth or falsity of a factual allegation can become very clear from the scene when it would not be clear from photographs and so otherwise would just be a question of each side (whether claimant and defendant or prosecution and defence in criminal cases) giving their different versions with nothing demonstrating definitively which was correct. The lawyers for each side will go on a site visit or view, as will the judge (and the jury if it is a criminal case). Clients will often also attend. Usually the pattern as to how things are to proceed will be agreed in advance (so that it does not become a free for all with everyone saying look at this or this shows this or that shows that).

The judge was wearing a black jacket and waistcoat with pinstripe trousers. So was the barrister. (This type of legal dress was common until the late 70s early 80s, and largely died out during the 80s. When this occurred this type of dress was still reasonably common). The litigant in person objected. He thought it was immensely sinister that both the judge and the barrister had turned up wearing identical outfits. (To be entirely fair to the litigant, this was not the sort of suit you see every day, and since he had probably never seen it before it may have struck him as somewhat odd that the barrister and the judge should both be wearing it). Exactly what he thought he never articulated (use the same tailor so must know one another?) but he objected to the site visit taking place at all on the grounds that the identical clothing smacked of "collusion". The judge dismissed his concern out of hand. Therefore the site visit proceeded.

The premises looked in serious disrepair. In one room there was water running down the walls which the litigant described as "condensation". However it was clearly not. This was not an easy start for a litigant who was going to have to give evidence and argue the case himself when the judge had already had the chance to see what sort of state property was in.

When the evidence came to be given things did not get any easier, as we shall see next week.