Written by The civil courts in England and Wales are supposed to be accessible to the public. Yet in practice, if you’re a litigant in person—someone without a lawyer—the very system meant to deliver justice can quickly turn against you.
Over the past few months, I’ve supported an individual—let’s call him “Mr A”—as he tried to challenge a £125,000 court order imposed after the court misunderstood its own administrative record. What followed was a Kafkaesque ordeal that reveals just how dangerously inaccessible the civil justice system has become.
⸻
The Problem Isn’t Just the Law—It’s the Process
Mr A had filed a valid application (Form N244) to challenge the order. It was submitted through the correct online platform, CE-File, and the court fee of £313 was duly paid. But because the documents were uploaded as a single file rather than in multiple PDFs, the application was rejected. That’s not unusual—CE-File is notorious among lawyers and court staff for its unforgiving user interface.
But Mr A isn’t a lawyer. He’s a member of the public, trying to defend his company and home from financial collapse. No one contacted him to explain how to correct the issue. Instead, he was left to guess—and when he resubmitted the application by email with the documents separated (as explicitly recommended by court staff at Bristol Civil & Family Justice Centre), and paid the new fee (£246), the court again failed to process it properly.
Then came the most shocking part.
On 29 May 2025, the court issued an order stating no application had been re-submitted at all—and consequently stayed the entire case. When Mr A appealed, providing proof of his payment, the email submission, and explicit confirmation from the Bristol Specialist Team that his documents had indeed been received, the judge accepted that everything had been correctly submitted and paid—but astonishingly refused to reverse the stay. Why? Because the email had not gone through CE-File, despite the court itself inviting submissions by email in cases of CE-File difficulties. The only route left, she said, was to appeal to the Court.
This is the modern civil justice system in a nutshell: create procedural impossibilities, then punish those who cannot navigate them.
⸻
CE-File: A Technocrat’s Dream, a Litigant’s Nightmare
The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) are meant to facilitate fairness and efficiency. But when coupled with digital platforms like CE-File, they become a labyrinth. CPR Practice Direction 5B.2.2 prohibits emailing applications requiring fees in High Court matters. Yet, paradoxically, courts such as the Bristol Business and Property Court routinely invite litigants in person to submit documents by email when CE-File fails, explicitly to assist them in avoiding procedural traps.
So why was Mr A punished for following precisely the court’s own guidance? The answer lies not in law but in institutional rigidity. CE-File doesn’t allow any margin for error. There is no on-screen warning that bundling documents will cause rejection. No safeguard prompts users to upload files separately. And crucially, no effective internal corrective mechanism exists when errors inevitably arise.
⸻
When the System Fails, It Blames the User
Mr A’s situation exemplifies a disturbing and systemic pattern. When court staff make administrative mistakes—such as misfiling documents, overlooking emails, or failing to acknowledge payments—no corrective procedure exists to swiftly rectify the error. Instead, these mistakes are treated as procedural defaults attributable to the litigant.
In Mr A’s case, despite clear documentary evidence demonstrating compliance and timely submission—including an email from the Bristol Specialist Team explicitly confirming receipt—the judge claimed she lacked the jurisdiction to correct her own error under CPR 3.1(7), despite established authority from the Court that not only permits but mandates correction of such factual errors (Tibbles v SIG plc [2012] EWCA Civ 518).
This created an artificial procedural hurdle that obstructed genuine grievances from ever reaching substantive consideration. Mr A, a litigant in person, was forced to engage in a further expensive and complex appellate process simply to correct an administrative error, incurring ongoing financial prejudice amounting to daily losses of £162.60, with accumulated damages swiftly surpassing £20,000.
⸻
A Systemic Crisis in Access to Justice
Mr A’s case is far from isolated. Across the civil courts, administrative errors routinely result in severe consequences for unrepresented litigants. The courts’ insistence on procedural rigidity—even in the face of acknowledged internal error—creates profound injustice. By punishing users for inherent system failures, the courts effectively deny access to justice, undermining the very principles they are designed to uphold.
For Mr A, and countless litigants in person facing similar bureaucratic barriers, the civil justice system isn’t merely inaccessible—it is actively hostile.
Until the courts prioritise procedural fairness and meaningful support for litigants in person, justice will remain elusive, and the civil system will continue to betray those it is meant to serve.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice; no solicitor–client relationship is created, and you should obtain independent professional guidance before relying on it. Neither the author nor Legal Lens accepts liability for any loss arising from reliance on the content, which is offered “as-is” without warranties as to completeness or accuracy.