Written by Access to justice
Digital court systems can make litigation faster, cleaner and easier to manage. But where professional users have better tools, training and support than litigants in person, digitisation can also deepen inequality. The access-to-justice question is not whether courts should modernise. They should. The question is whether modernisation is being designed around all court users, not only those with professional infrastructure behind them.
Publication snapshot
- Family court statistics for April to June 2023 recorded that neither party had legal representation in 40% of private law disposals.
- HMCTS E-Filing can be used by both legal professionals and litigants in person in listed courts and tribunals, but access does not remove the practical burden of using the system correctly.
- Video hearings, online filing and digital claims services can improve access where they are supported by clear guidance, technical assistance and non-digital alternatives.
- The strongest reform direction is not anti-digital. It is user-centred digital justice: simpler interfaces, practical support, clear notifications, fair accommodation and fallback routes.
Why this matters
Litigants in person are people who conduct proceedings without a lawyer representing them. They may be capable, organised and digitally confident in ordinary life, yet still face serious disadvantage when required to use unfamiliar court systems under pressure.
The scale matters. Ministry of Justice family court statistics for April to June 2023 recorded that, in private law disposals, neither the applicant nor the respondent had legal representation in 40% of cases. In private law cases with at least one hearing, the proportion of parties with legal representation stood at 29% in the same period.
The practical point: digital access is not the same as practical equality. A person may technically have access to a portal, hearing link or upload function but still lack the training, support, templates and professional systems that make those tools usable.
The professional advantage
Legal professionals usually approach digital court systems with institutional support. They may have case-management software, administrative staff, shared document systems, e-bundling tools, training, payment accounts, procedural checklists and colleagues who have used the same systems before.
Litigants in person often approach the same procedural environment alone. They may need to prepare PDFs, understand file naming, upload documents, manage deadlines, join video hearings, organise bundles, track orders and interpret notifications without a professional workflow around them.
Professional filing workflow
Legal teams can divide drafting, filing, payment, checking and correspondence across staff and systems.
LiP filing burden
A litigant in person must often draft, paginate, convert, upload, check and chase the same material alone.
Professional document tools
Firms may use specialist PDF, bundling, annotation and case-management systems as routine infrastructure.
LiP document risk
Self-represented parties may rely on basic PDF tools, email attachments, paper records or improvised filing systems.
System pressure points
The digital divide is not one single platform. It is the combined effect of multiple pressure points: filing portals, video hearings, document bundles, notifications, online forms, payment systems and case updates.
HMCTS E-Filing
HMCTS describes E-Filing as an online tool that can be used by legal professionals and people without a solicitor. It enables users to submit, pay for and manage cases online in listed courts and tribunals.
Video hearings
Cloud Video Platform guidance asks users to check their browser, camera, microphone and joining details. For professional users this is routine; for a litigant in person, the technical layer can become a hearing-risk issue.
Bundles and PDFs
Digital bundles can make hearings easier where they are paginated, indexed and navigable. Poorly prepared bundles can create confusion and delay.
Notifications and deadlines
Missing a notification, misunderstanding an upload status or failing to track a rejected filing can have real procedural consequences.
The problem is rarely that one system is inherently unfair. The problem is cumulative. A represented party may experience the same system as routine workflow. A litigant in person may experience it as a second case running alongside the legal dispute.
OCMC: what better design can do
The Online Civil Money Claims service shows that digital systems can improve access when designed around ordinary users. The HMCTS fact sheet states that OCMC has issued more than 472,000 claims from unrepresented claimants since its introduction in March 2018 and achieved average user satisfaction of 95% for claimants and 66% for defendants.
That does not mean every court process can simply copy OCMC. Family, employment, civil, property and appellate disputes have different procedural demands. But the lesson is important: digital justice works better when the service explains the process, guides the user, reduces administrative friction and gives clear feedback.
The design lesson
The best digital court systems do not simply move paper online. They redesign the journey so the user understands what to do, when to do it, what has been accepted, what has failed, and what happens next.
Practical impact on LiPs
Digital disadvantage can affect the substance of a case. A litigant in person may lose time preparing documents, miss a deadline, fail to include a key exhibit, misunderstand upload confirmation, or attend a remote hearing without the same technical confidence as the represented party.
Administrative overload
The litigant spends time converting files, naming documents, compressing PDFs and checking upload instructions instead of preparing the legal argument.
Information asymmetry
The represented party may have faster internal systems for tracking updates, preparing bundles and responding to procedural developments.
Hearing disadvantage
Remote hearings can be harder where the litigant has poor equipment, unreliable internet, limited privacy or little experience of virtual hearing etiquette.
Procedural credibility risk
A filing or bundle problem may be read as lack of preparation, even where the real issue is digital access or support.
A safer way to describe these cases is not to invent a dramatic case study, but to identify the repeating pattern: digital friction consumes time, increases anxiety and makes it harder for a litigant in person to present the real issue clearly.
Support and safeguards
Digital reform should not assume that every user has the same equipment, confidence, literacy, language ability, disability position, internet connection or private space. Fair digital justice needs support routes as well as platforms.
Technical support
Use where: the issue is login, upload, payment, rejection, browser access or joining a video hearing. Ask for: helpdesk details and written confirmation.
Procedural support
Use where: the issue is what document to file, what a direction means, or how to prepare for a hearing. Ask for: court guidance or support organisation help.
Reasonable adjustments
Use where: disability, health, language or access needs affect participation. Ask for: adjustments early, in writing and with practical detail.
Non-digital alternative
Use where: digital filing or hearing participation is not realistically accessible. Ask for: a paper, telephone or assisted route where available.
Fairer digital design
The way forward is not to halt digitisation. It is to design digital justice around actual users, including people who do not have a legal team. A fair system should make the procedural task easier, not simply transfer the administrative burden onto the individual.
Plain-language task lists
Users should see what has been filed, what remains outstanding, what the deadline is, and what happens if a document is rejected.
Equal notification clarity
Notifications should be understandable, dated, searchable and clear about whether action is required.
Bundle support
Litigants in person need practical guidance on pagination, indexing, file size, bookmarks, exhibits and naming conventions.
Fallback routes
Paper, telephone and assisted-digital alternatives should remain available where digital exclusion would otherwise block participation.
Judicial awareness
Case management should recognise when a digital failure is a genuine access issue rather than simple non-compliance.
Source anchors
These sources help readers separate official statistics, filing systems, video hearing guidance and digital civil-claims reform:
- Ministry of Justice: Family Court Statistics Quarterly, April to June 2023 — official statistics on private law cases and legal representation.
- HMCTS E-Filing service for citizens and professionals — official guidance on who can use the service, what it covers and support routes.
- HMCTS: How to join Cloud Video Platform for a video hearing — official technical joining guidance.
- HMCTS: Online Civil Money Claims fact sheet — official figures and outcomes for the OCMC service.
- The Legal Education Foundation: Digital Justice — research context on HMCTS data strategy and access to justice.
Closing point
Digital courts can improve access to justice where systems are clear, supported and designed for ordinary users. But where digital tools assume professional capacity, the divide widens. The aim should be simple: a litigant in person should not need a law firm’s infrastructure to file a document, join a hearing, track a deadline or understand what has happened in their own case.
Legal Lens decision support
Digital court problem? Turn the access issue into a record.
If a portal, video hearing, bundle problem, rejected filing or missed notification has affected your case, the next step should be structured. A focused review can separate technical difficulty from procedural risk and identify what needs to be explained to the court.
What the assessment can organise
Legal Lens can help build a practical digital-access map: the platform used, the task attempted, the error or barrier, the deadline affected, the evidence of the problem, and the order or clarification you may need.
Best for
Litigants in person facing filing, bundle, video hearing, notification or digital-access barriers.
What you get
A structured issue map showing what happened, what evidence supports it, and what procedural step may be proportionate.
Practical output
A cleaner route for response: chronology, explanation, draft request for clarification, adjustment request or support-route plan.
Independent Legal Lens consultancy. A preliminary assessment is decision support designed to help you organise the documents, issues and next step.