Written by Over a decade of reform—yet the deck remains stacked
In the course of public hearings and academic analyses, the increasing number of litigants in person (LiPs)—people navigating the legal system without legal representation—has posed a critical test to the jigsaw puzzle of justice in England and Wales. Despite a series of procedural reforms stretching from 2013 to 2024, the voices of those who represent themselves are still echoing in nearly empty chambers: the reforms have failed to level the playing field.
A decade of digital hope and procedural update
In the early 2010s, sweeping changes upended civil justice. The Jackson reforms (2013) reined in costs, while the scope of small claims jurisdiction doubled to £10,000, effectively boosting the number of unrepresented litigants. In parallel, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) dismantled legal aid in vast swathes of civil law. The response?
A new cornerstone: CPR 3.1A (October 2015), instructing judges to calibrate case management with LiPs in mind, aiming to achieve the overriding objective of justice for all .
On the employment front, the tide turned sharply in 2017 when tribunal fees—introduced in 2013—were ruled unlawful. Their decade-long existence strangled access, and even once removed, misfires in tribunal efficiency offered little consolation.
Technology staged a cerebral takeover. The Online Civil Money Claims service, first capped at £10,000, has since increased to £25,000, positioning digital tools as the answer to barriers faced by non-lawyers . The HMCTS reform programme anticipated that greater digitisation would enhance access—but in reality, courts are pursuing two diametrically opposed paths with lukewarm results.
Reform fatigue: introduction of rules and positivity without delivery
Judicial pronouncements and updated guidance confirm that the judiciary acknowledges the difficulties LiPs face. The Equal Treatment Bench Book, most recently refreshed in July 2024, includes guidance around fair participation in digital hearings and cautions on vulnerability . However, inclusion in policy doesn’t always translate to consistent practice—especially where resources are thin and training is uneven across courts.
A 2025 study into Employment Tribunal systemic barriers starkly concluded: “liPs face significant disadvantages,” with procedural rules and tribunal culture tilting in favour of represented defendants . Government surveys underscore it: 77% of employers attend hearings with lawyers; only 41% of claimants do the same .
The inequality of arms amid procedural complexity
Procedural barbs sharpen where LiPs confront seasoned counsel or strategic solicitors. It begins with the digital divide: while lawyers tap into HMCTS portals with intuitive access, LiPs often run up against technological bottlenecks and limited functionality . The result is metal fatigue: missing directions, filing errors, or confusion between case stages—not because they lack merit, but because they lack digital literacy.
This gap compounds the emotional and intellectual burdens flagged in the 2013 Equal Treatment Bench Book: LiPs struggle with legal jargon, lack courtroom literacy, and face stress that impedes coherent advocacy .
Nor are delays innocuous. Post‑reform, tribunal caseloads ballooned—with just under 50,000 cases waiting for hearings by late 2024 . For a LiP, a year’s delay is more than administrative—it corrodes capacity, drains resources, and undermines retention of evidence.
Underhanded tactics and psychological warfare
Where the system falters, opponents exploit it. In Employment Tribunals, deliberate submission of last-minute evidence bundles, or “document dumps”, are deployed to disorient. These 500-page parachutes leave unrepresented parties scrambling .
In civil courts, counsel may abuse costs threats to induce withdrawal. Many LiPs accept these at face value—unaware that costs orders are exceptional and predicated on unreasonable conduct . The psychological effect is real: uncertainty and capitulation become easy options.
Similarly, deliberate delays—late disclosure, sketchy bundles—are gambits designed to destabilise. The cost of opposing these tactics is steep: LiPs must not only parse their own claim, but also police technical assaults.
One Canadian observer once lamented the asymmetry: it’s akin to fighting with one arm tied behind your back. For many LiPs, that’s not metaphor—it’s daily reality.
How courts are failing procedural fairness
Reforms like CPR 3.1A, online gated access, or refreshed Equal Treatment Bench Books risk becoming ceremonial gestures without teeth.
Judges, meant to temper the adversity, often fail to intervene strongly enough. While they may appreciate a LiP’s plight, they still “must apply the same law as everyone else,” per Barton v Wright Hassall . This label of fairness works only if the system is fair—but outcomes suggest it is not.
One tribunal study exposed that LiPs consistently struggle with deadlines, forms, and disclosure—but in the absence of institutional guidance, they are expected to catch up mid-flight . The result: procedural default becomes justice denied.
Procedural weapons: unless orders, strike outs, and cost sanctions
LiPs are not powerless, but they need to learn the rules to use them.
1. Unless orders
A powerful tool in tribunal procedure: when an opponent withholds key documents, a LiP can ask for an unless order—a judicial ultimatum that forces evidence disclosure by a deadline or face strike-out of the offending case . Yet effective use demands both understanding and fortitude—not qualities easily mustered when you’re in court alone.
2. Strike-out applications
Anyone can apply to strike out a statement of case under CPR or Tribunal Rules if there’s no prospect of success, or repeated non-compliance with court orders . While tribunals expect to preserve claims, the mere initiation of such an application can impose a psychological check on hostile opponents.
3. Costs orders and wasted costs
In civil courts, unreasonable conduct can trigger indemnity costs or wasted costs orders under CPR 44. In employment tribunals, while costs awards are rare, they remain on the table if a party behaves “vexatiously or unreasonably” . A LiP armed with this knowledge can at least weaponise process, even if not full representation.
But knowledge alone is no cure
While these tools exist on paper, many LiPs lack awareness of them—or the tactical skills to deploy them. Tribunal guidance on “ambush tactics” is thin, and support services are sporadic. The result is described in one 2025 analysis: despite repeated procedural setbacks, LiPs rarely knew what to do beyond fumble or retreat .
The institutional inertia that blindsides reform
Three themes stand out:
- Digital tools that designed without LiPs in mind – HMCTS portals are geared to professionals; LiPs are left cobbling together solutions .
- Procedural update jostling with cultural conservatism – Judges say they want fairness, but normalised advocacy culture continues to treat LiPs as dependent rather than participants .
- Support services underfunded and fragmented – Places like Support Through Court exist, but are not universal, and court staff properly trained in LiP‑awareness remain rare.
Even the best rule—CPR 3.1A—lacks enforcement mechanism when courts are rebounding from pandemic backlogs. The result? Reforms are implemented unevenly, optimism followed by returns to form-based routine.
A call to action for real reform
Plain-language first
Forms, directions, case guides: all must be revised in plain English, not legalese. This is not “liP‑friendly”—it’s justice for all. Scotland’s Civil Online portal shows the UK what digital design can achieve .
Dedicated procedural supervision
Large courts should deploy staff or judicial officers trained to act as LiP‑liaisons. Someone who checks forms, flags missing steps, and ensures LiP cases don’t drift off course.
Mandatory speak‑ups during hearing
Rather than have LiPs buried by counsel, hearings should include a consistent invitation: “Does the claimant understand what is happening?” A small judicial prompt, repeated, can be structural.
Accessibility both online and offline
Digitisation must be accompanied by sustained offline support. Phone help lines, in‑court assistance, and properly funded volunteers should not be optional add-ons—they must be central.
Litigants in Person: Still caught between two worlds
Despite two decades of reform and digital overhaul, LiPs remain at a distinct disadvantage. They operate under procedural peril, reactionary from concealment, deadlines missed, and evidence ambushed.
Yet every item on the procedural armoury is available to them. The difficulty is knowing how to use it—and to summon the courage and clarity to wield it. Few are formally trained as litigators; fewer still feel confident confronting counsel-borne tactics at a tribunal.
In the absence of systemic support, the LiP remains a soldier trying to build armour on the battlefield.
Conclusion: a justice system still weighted
From 2013’s cost reforms to 2024’s embrace of equal treatment, the UK justice system has rewritten parts of the script—but it hasn’t changed the cast. LiPs remain the outliers, forced into a fight they’re barely prepared for. Procedural nuance, psychological tactics, digital hurdles: these compound to entrench disadvantage, even in the presence of fair-sounding rules.
If we truly believe justice is blind, then we need to make the system physically blind to representation status. Until then, every procedural tool LiPs learn to use is a stolen gift from a system that still laughs at their inexperience—and their resilience.
Disclaimer
This article provides general information and commentary on legal developments in England and Wales. It is not legal advice. Readers should seek independent, qualified counsel before acting on any points raised.
Sources: Reports from LinkedIn Legal Lens and judiciary, government surveys, HMCTS digital reviews, ETBB updates (July 2024), tribunal research (March 2025).