57 articles · All articles

Ended before it starts: summary judgment and strike out under CPR Part 24 and rule 3.4 for litigants in person

Two applications can end a civil case before it ever reaches trial. This guide explains the difference between strike out under CPR rule 3.4 — including the new SLAPP ground — and summary judgment under Part 24, the notice and evidence deadlines both sides must meet, and how a litigant in person can resist an application or use the same procedure against a hopeless claim or defence.

Help with Fees: the court fee remission scheme litigants in person keep paying past

Court fees are set to be felt — £455 to issue an £8,000 claim, £346 more for the hearing — but the Help with Fees scheme can reduce them to zero for anyone under the savings and income thresholds. The catch is that it is strictly self-service: a separate application for every fee, a 28-day clock on evidence letters, and three months to reclaim a fee you should never have paid.

Judicial review for litigants in person: the three-month clock and the permission stage

Judicial review is often the only route for challenging a public body’s decision — but every claim needs the court’s permission, and the three-month clock runs from the decision itself, not from when you first get advice. This guide explains what judicial review can reach, how the pre-action protocol works, what the permission filter screens for, and when another route is the better tool.

Relief from sanctions after Denton: the practical evidence a late application needs

Missed a directions deadline? The sanction takes effect automatically, and the way back is an application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. This guide follows one worked breach – a late witness statement – through the three Denton stages, the application notice and the witness statement in support, and explains why it is a different remedy from setting aside a default judgment.

Default judgment: when silence becomes a judgment before the facts are heard

Civil procedure · Default judgment · Set aside A court judgment does not always follow a trial. Sometimes it follows silence. Default judgment is the procedural moment where a missed response can become judgment before the facts are tested, and the defendant’s first task may no longer be to defend the claim, but to explain … Continue reading “Default judgment: when silence becomes a judgment before the facts are heard”

Unmasking an ‘Old Boys’ Club’: Freemasonry, Whistleblowers and the UK Justice System

Judicial accountability · whistleblowing · Freemasonry transparency A new legal challenge over alleged judicial bullying has revived an old question: whether opaque networks, institutional loyalty and unfinished reforms leave whistleblowers facing more than their formal opponents. No grand conspiracy is proved, but the absence of disclosure leaves public trust exposed. Jurisdiction: United Kingdom Focus: JCIO, … Continue reading “Unmasking an ‘Old Boys’ Club’: Freemasonry, Whistleblowers and the UK Justice System”