Written by Access to justice
Digital courts can improve speed, convenience and access to information. But digitisation can also create a new form of inequality where represented parties have better systems, training and support than litigants in person. The access-to-justice test is not whether the court has an online process. It is whether an ordinary user can understand it, use it, recover from mistakes and participate on fair terms.
Publication snapshot
- Digital court systems can reduce delay and paperwork when they are designed around real users.
- Litigants in person may technically have access to digital systems but still lack professional infrastructure, training and support.
- MoJ family court statistics show the continuing scale of self-representation in private law family cases.
- HMCTS E-Filing is available to legal professionals and litigants in person in listed jurisdictions, but practical access depends on documents, payments, guidance, notifications and support.
- The reform aim should be user-centred digital justice, not a two-tier process where professional users benefit most from modernisation.
Why this matters
The principle of equality before the law is weakened if one party can use court systems fluently while the other is left to decode process, technology and legal language alone. A represented party may have a solicitor, case-management software, administrative support, e-bundling tools and experience of court portals. A litigant in person may have none of that.
The scale is not marginal. Ministry of Justice family court statistics for January to March 2023 recorded that, in private law disposals, neither party 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%.
The practical point: digital access is not the same as digital equality. A litigant in person may be allowed to use a system but still be disadvantaged by its complexity, assumptions and support model.
The rise of digital courts
Digitisation is now embedded in parts of the justice system. Court users may encounter online filing, digital case management, remote hearings, electronic bundles, online money claims, digital divorce, electronic notifications and portal-based document management.
For professional users, those changes can improve efficiency. They can file documents outside office hours, track accepted or rejected filings, prepare bundles, manage notifications and move documents quickly between teams. For a litigant in person, the same systems can create a second dispute: not only the legal case, but the administrative task of keeping up with digital process.
E-Filing
HMCTS describes E-Filing as a tool for submitting, paying for and managing cases online in listed courts and tribunals.
Video hearings
Remote hearings can reduce travel and waiting time, but they require equipment, connectivity, privacy and confidence with the platform.
Digital claims
Online Civil Money Claims shows how a user-centred service can make some claims easier for unrepresented users.
Digital bundles
Electronic bundles can help hearings run efficiently, but only where parties know how to paginate, index, bookmark and file them properly.
The digital divide
The digital divide is not only about internet access. It includes confidence, software, time, legal vocabulary, disability, literacy, language, device quality, private space, administrative support and the ability to understand what a court notification actually requires.
Access gap
Some systems are available to litigants in person, but the practical user journey may still be easier for professional users.
Training gap
Lawyers and support staff may use the same platforms repeatedly. A litigant in person may encounter them for the first time under deadline pressure.
Technology gap
Reliable broadband, a laptop, scanning tools, PDF software and a private workspace cannot be assumed.
Process gap
A rejected upload, unclear notification or misunderstood direction can have real procedural consequences.
The result can be subtle but serious. A represented party may experience digital procedure as a workflow. A litigant in person may experience it as an obstacle course.
Implications for justice
Digital inequality affects more than convenience. It can shape the merits of a case if one party misses a deadline, fails to file evidence properly, misunderstands an order, cannot access a hearing link, or lacks the tools to prepare a usable bundle.
Information asymmetry
Professional users may have better systems for tracking filings, notifications, rejected documents and hearing preparation.
Procedural disadvantage
A litigant in person may lose time solving technical problems instead of preparing the evidence and legal points.
Reduced engagement
If systems feel inaccessible, some litigants may disengage, respond late, over-rely on paper, or avoid raising valid points.
Fairness risk
Where digital failure is treated as simple non-compliance, the court may miss the underlying access issue.
The key distinction
The issue is not whether litigants in person should be exempt from procedure. It is whether procedure is being administered in a way that accounts for the real difference between technical access and practical ability to participate.
Steps towards equality
A fair digital court system should be built around the user journey. The system should make it clear what must be done, what has been accepted, what has failed, what deadline applies, and where the user can get support.
Comparable access
Where possible, litigants in person should have access to the same core case information, filing status and notification clarity as represented parties.
Simplified interfaces
Digital services should use plain language, task lists, visible deadlines and clear confirmation of accepted or rejected filings.
Training and support
Users need practical guidance on uploading, PDF preparation, bundle formatting, video hearings and what to do when something fails.
Non-digital fallback
Paper, telephone and assisted-digital routes should remain available where online participation is unrealistic.
Judicial awareness
Judges and court staff should be able to distinguish deliberate non-compliance from genuine digital exclusion or platform failure.
Comparative note
The draft refers to Scotland and the Netherlands as examples of more user-focused digital justice. That comparative point is useful, but it should be handled carefully. Different jurisdictions have different procedures, funding models, court structures and user populations.
The safer lesson is broader: digital systems are more likely to support access to justice when they are built around ordinary users rather than professional assumptions. Plain-language prompts, guided pathways, visible next steps and assisted support are not extras. They are safeguards.
Professional-first design
Assumes the user understands legal terminology, filing categories, document conventions and procedural consequences.
User-centred design
Explains what the user is doing, why it matters, what must be uploaded, and how the system confirms the step has worked.
Access-to-justice design
Provides fallback routes, support, adjustments and clear escalation where the digital process itself becomes the barrier.
Long-term consequences
If the digital divide is not addressed, the justice system risks building a two-speed process. Professional users move through portals, filing workflows and digital bundles with institutional support. Litigants in person spend disproportionate time fighting format, login, upload, notification and access problems.
Public trust
Confidence weakens where ordinary users believe digital systems work better for professionals than for them.
Two-tier justice
Digital modernisation can widen inequality if represented parties gain most of the efficiency benefit.
Court resources
Confusing systems may generate more rejected filings, more queries, more adjournments and more case-management friction.
Social inequality
People with poor broadband, limited devices, disabilities, language barriers or low digital confidence may be pushed further from effective participation.
Source anchors
These sources help readers separate official statistics, current HMCTS systems, remote-hearing guidance and digital civil-claims reform:
- Ministry of Justice: Family Court Statistics Quarterly, January to March 2023 — legal representation data in private law family cases.
- Ministry of Justice: Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly, January to March 2023 — civil defended-claims, track allocation and timeliness data.
- HMCTS E-Filing service for citizens and professionals — official guidance on online filing, support and paper alternatives.
- 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 OCMC.
Closing point
Digital innovation should make justice more accessible, not more dependent on professional infrastructure. The test for digital courts is practical equality: can an ordinary person understand the process, file the right document, correct a mistake, join the hearing, track the case and ask for help before the system turns a technical problem into a procedural penalty?
Legal Lens decision support
Digital court problem? Build the record before it becomes procedural damage.
If a portal, rejected filing, bundle problem, hearing link, missed notification or upload error has affected your case, the next step should be structured. A focused review can help 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 system used, the task attempted, the error or barrier, the deadline affected, the evidence of the problem, and the clarification or direction you may need.
Best for
Litigants in person facing portal, filing, bundle, video-hearing, notification or digital-access problems.
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, clarification request, 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.