library
Litigation - general
14 November 2011
Courts have power to order that there be a new trial, where a trial proceeds in a party's absence. However the absent party must show that they acted promptly when the Court entered Judgment or made an order; had good reason for not attending and had a reasonable prospect of success.
On 9th November 2011 the High Court refused an application for a new Trial made by a litigant in person. It found that the Applicant had taken seven weeks to make an application, when she knew the trial had been heard in her absence. That said, the Court noted that the test (on time) should not be too rigorous, particularly as the Applicant had made a number of applications, before making the correct one. The Applicant also suggested inability to attend trial on health grounds without evidence from a Doctor. This did not suffice. Nevertheless, to provide the benefit of the doubt, the Court also looked at merits and concluded, unfortunately, that the Applicant did not have reasonable prospects. Having regard to all these factors the Court refused to order that there be a new Trial.
Fineland Investments Ltd v Janice Vivien Pritchard Ch D (Norris J) 9/11/11
This decision emphasises the need not to make assumptions that the Court will be sympathetic and operate without evidence, even if you are acting without a lawyer. Howell Jones' suggest that it is always wise to use a lawyer in litigation; it saves having to remedy problems after the event. Our Litigation Team know the Court procedure and rules backwards and will be happy to advise and assist you.
If you are involved in or contemplating litigation, please feel free to contact our Litigation Team, for a free exploratory conversation.
Andrew Petchey, Partner, Litigation Team, Howell Jones solicitors.
