Tips for dealing with Litigants in Person

This article was published on

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/litigation-and-enforcement/311-litigation-features/41102-tips-for-dealing-with-litigants-in-person
All credit belongs to the original publishers.

This is for general information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

---

Emma Marshall provides some tips to bear in mind when dealing with Litigants in Person and a reminder of a number of pieces of guidance, to assist in-house teams in dealing with Litigants in Person in disputes or court/tribunal proceedings.

Litigant in Person: an individual, company or organisation that has rights of audience and is not represented in the courts of England and Wales by a solicitor or barrister.

Recent cuts to legal aid, the increase in the small claims limit and ongoing austerity are all factors which have triggered the number of Litigants in Person appearing in courts and tribunals to increase.

Dealing with Litigants in Person can sometimes be a frustrating and time-consuming experience. Some Litigants in Person have a working knowledge of court procedure and require little additional assistance in representing themselves, but other Litigants in Person can cause real difficulties. Maintaining that balance of treating Litigants in Person fairly while also acting in the best interests of your client can be a minefield. It can be difficult to know what you should or should not say or do and you might even find yourself being subjected to rude, unpleasant or even aggressive conduct or behaviour.

Duties when dealing with Litigants in Person

A lawyer owes a duty to his/her client and also to the court and the administration of justice. The two duties may conflict where the lawyer is under a duty not to mislead the court but in doing so, the lawyer is, for example, obliged to present documents to the court which adversely affect or undermine the client’s case. Where there is such a conflict, the lawyer’s duty to the court must prevail.

When it comes to dealing with third parties, lawyers must not take unfair advantage of third parties, including Litigants in Person. Behaviour which might constitute the taking of unfair advantage includes bullying, the making of unjustifiable threats, misleading behaviour, claiming a sum which cannot properly be claimed or demanding something which cannot properly be demanded.

However, using the law and legal procedure effectively against a Litigant in Person because you have the knowledge/skills to do so is not taking unfair advantage. Contrary to what some Litigants in Person may think, there is also no obligation to assist a Litigant in Person to run their case or to take action on their behalf. So what exactly should you do?

Some tips and suggestions

Explain

Explain but don’t advise. Explain what the Litigant in Person needs to do next, refer them to the Civil Procedure Rules where necessary and try to ensure they understand the next steps. For example, you might tell a Litigant in Person that they need to file and serve witness evidence by a certain date otherwise they may not be able to rely on that witness evidence at trial. You might also refer them to the relevant provisions of the CPR and suggest that they take legal advice. However, you should not advise the Litigant in Person what they should cover in their witness evidence nor provide them with a template witness statement to use – this would be assisting the Litigant in Person to run their case.

Communicate

When communicating with a Litigant in Person, ensure you are professional, co-operative and courteous. Perhaps at the start of the matter you could send the Law Society’s ‘Notes for Litigants in Person’ to the Litigant in Person, so that they are clear from day one what they can and cannot expect from you. Try to avoid unnecessary or inflammatory language and arguments. Avoid legal jargon where possible and ensure your language is clear. Encourage the Litigant in Person to seek independent legal advice, at the outset of the dispute and at appropriate stages as the dispute progresses.

You are under no obligation to accept or tolerate behaviour from a Litigant in Person which is abusive, aggressive or unacceptable in some other way. Litigants in Person can often become frustrated that lawyers are not able to respond to them immediately or deal with their correspondence straight away. You are under no obligation to respond to a Litigant in Person immediately but you might instead choose to acknowledge receipt of the Litigant in Person’s correspondence, explain that you need to consider it and take instructions and confirm that you will get back to them when you can, perhaps giving an indication of when that might be. This approach will hopefully satisfy the Litigant in Person that you have received their correspondence and are dealing with it.

Prepare

Do not assume that the Litigant in Person will take the usual steps in the court/tribunal process which a represented party would. Be prepared to be responsible for hearing bundles and take conduct of drawing up and sealing orders, even if this would not happen if the Litigant in Person were represented. Think about how you might assist the court by taking responsibility for tasks/actions which a Litigant in Person is unlikely to complete. Make sure you serve documents correctly and on time. To protect yourself and your client, take a note of any conversations with the Litigant in Person so there is a record of what was discussed and when. Try to give plenty of notice to the Litigant in Person of applications, arguments and/or submissions if you can, to minimise the risk of surprises.

Anticipate

Anticipate that the Litigant in Person might request adjournments or make applications for extensions of time. If you have a hearing or trial coming up, consider whether a hearing might take longer than usual because the other party is a Litigant in Person and try to anticipate likely issues which might arise during hearings.

Guidance

If in doubt about how you should proceed in a scenario concerning a Litigant in Person, take a look at the Law Society’s Guidance. Both the Law Society’s Guidance and the Notes for Litigants in Person can be accessed here.

If you are really unsure how you should proceed, run your situation past a colleague, sleep on it, take some time to think about the options available to you or give us a quick call to discuss. That way, you stand the best chance possible of ensuring you maintain that balance between acting fairly towards the Litigant in Person but also in the best interests of your client.

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

Treating litigants in person fairly – the plot continues…

This article was published on

https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/Financial-services-and-dispute-investigation/Treating_litigants_in_person_fairly_the_plot_continues
All credit belongs to the original publishers.

This is for general information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

---

Bayton-Williams v Bayton-Williams [2019] EWHC 2179 (Ch)

Summary: In a recent High Court decision, Master Clark allowed evidence from a defendant litigant in person which he had filed late with the court and not served. Whilst holding that there was no good reason for the breach, the judge considered that there were steps the claimant’s solicitors could have taken, and that they were wrong to mislead the defendant when stating the legal consequences for not filing or serving evidence on time. The case serves up some interesting practical points for legal representatives who deal with litigants in person and puts fairness towards such litigants at the very heart of any actions.

 Background:

The proceedings involved the estate of a mother to two brothers. The defendant brother (a litigant in person) had lived in the mother’s property rent free for a number of years.  The claimant brother (represented by solicitors) sought removal of the defendant as administrator of the estate and rent for the period of occupation. The claimant instructed an expert to provide a report as to the value of the occupation.

At a hearing in August 2018, Master Clark granted the claimant permission to rely on the expert report and also granted the defendant permission to file and serve evidence and to ask questions of the expert (the “Order”).  The defendant then:

• referred the expert to an estate agent who was familiar with the property. However, the expert took no action, instead stating that it was not his role to consider any further evidence from the defendant after his report had been written and that he was not instructed as a joint expert; and

• filed a witness statement with the court (49 minutes late) but failed to serve it. Unaware that the defendant had filed evidence, the claimant’s solicitors wrote to the defendant and said that “the deadline has now passed and you may not make any further submissions”. The defendant took the reply at face value.

When considering judgment on the value of the defendant’s occupation, Master Clark became aware of the above issues and was forced to decide upon them. 

The claimant’s main argument was that the defendant’s witness evidence should not be admitted because there was a general rule that evidence may not be relied upon unless it has been served on time (CPR rules 8.5, 8.6 and 32.10).  If a party wished to disapply this sanction, then he must apply for relief from sanctions. The defendant had made no application and even if such an application was made, it should not succeed because there was no good reason for what was a serious and significant breach which has caused substantial disruption and additional costs.  Further, it was not the claimant’s role to search the court file for evidence which they were unaware of.

The decision:

Master Clark permitted the defendant’s witness evidence:

1. This was not a case in which there was an express sanction consequent upon a breach of the Order and so CPR 3.9 did not apply.  Notwithstanding this, she accepted that she had a discretion to refuse to admit the defendant’s evidence and that permitting him to rely on it was equivalent to acceding an out of time application to extend the time for service (to which the principles applicable to relief from sanctions apply).

2. Turning to those principles, she accepted that they usually apply equally to a litigant in person as to a represented party[1] and that the failure to serve witness evidence was a serious and significant breach, for which there was no good reason.

3. But turning to “all the circumstances of the case”, there were relevant factors which justified her admitting the witness evidence:

3.1.1   although the defendant did not serve his evidence, by filing it he made it available to the claimant who could readily have obtained a copy from the court file. 

3.1.2   since neither the order on its face, nor any rule or practice direction provides for a sanction for failure to serve the evidence in time, it was not unreasonable for the defendant to be unaware of the “implied sanction” for such failure, or the need to apply for an extension of time in order to be able to rely on the evidence.

3.1.3   the claimant’s solicitors, did not state the legal position fully. They asserted an absolute bar to the defendant adducing the evidence, whereas the true position is that the defendant could have sought, and would have obtained, a short extension to serve his evidence. They misled the defendant by omission.

4. As to the expert’s evidence, she held that the expert did not understand and adhere to the requirement of his role:

4.1   CPR 35.3 provides that it is the overriding duty of experts to help the court. The expert had drawn an unjustified distinction between documents provided to him by the claimant’s solicitors and information provided by the defendant.

4.2   An expert should be ready to reconsider his opinion, and if appropriate, to change his mind when he has received new information.  The expert should have taken the new information from the defendant into account, but he did not do so. 

Comment

Fairness is the key theme to this judgment and the judge approached the case with this in mind commenting that it was her role to “ensure that the parties are on an equal footing, whilst ensuring compliance with rules, practice directions and orders: CPR 1.1”[2].  Some will hold the view that the court has been too lenient on the unrepresented defendant and that the decision conflicts with the strict treatment of a litigant in person by the Supreme Court in Barton[3]. However, arguably this case can be distinguished from Barton. In that case the litigant in person could have familiarised himself with the rules, whereas in this case, the rule was “implied” and it was a step too far to hold that he should have been familiar with it.  It is also notable that the claimant’s solicitors had misled him as to the correct legal position.

Several interesting practical points ensue and legal representatives should take note:

1. Where it appears that a party (litigant in person or not) has failed to adhere to a court deadline – before taking any action - check the court file. The claimant’s representatives were criticised in this case because they made no attempt to undertake what the court considered to be a simple and easy task.

2. Represented parties must be careful when stating a legal position to litigants in person to ensure that it is accurate and not misleading. This is why it is generally good practice to refrain from ‘giving legal advice’ to litigants in person and instead refer them to free or paid legal advice services.

3. Experts should carefully consider their duties and keep these under review.

Finally, CPR 39 was amended with effect from 6 April 2019 to require parties to disclose /copy in all other parties on any communications with the court on a matter of substance or procedure. Failure to comply may lead to sanctions being imposed. Whilst this amendment was brought in predominantly to ensure fairness to litigants in person, it would have been interesting to see whether the court’s approach would have been any different had the amendment been in place at the relevant time. Would the court have imposed sanctions on the defendant for failure to copy in the claimant’s solicitors when filing the evidence? Had the claimant’s solicitors been copied in on the filing of the witness evidence, they might not have gone on to mislead the position because they would have been aware that evidence had been filed.  What we can draw from this is that it is sensible to ensure that all correspondence with the court is copied to all other parties (save where the communication is “routine, uncontentious and administrative” [4] or it is otherwise appropriate not to do so).

We anticipate that this will not be the end to cases clarifying the appropriate treatment of litigants in person.

---

[1]  As held in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12.

[2]   Paragraph 10 of the judgment

[3]   By way of a reminder, the Supreme Court in Barton held that emailing the claim form in the absence of an agreement from a defendant to accept service by that method was not valid service, nor would it be subsequently validated by the court.  It was made clear that litigants in person are not a special category.  For further information, see our previous briefing https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/Litigation_Support/barton-v-wright

[4]   CPR 39.8(2)

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

diyLAW working with Brent Law Centre

During the past 5 years the Law Centre has worked closely with diyLAW. During this time they have placed several pro bono volunteers with us.  Volunteers are required to carry out 50 hours pro bono work assisting our solicitors with clients and casework in areas of Social Welfare Law. 

The majority of the pro bono volunteers assist our Asylum/Immigration Senior Solicitor with her work. Tasks include carrying out country research for Asylum claims, drafting detailed chronological background information on clients, research on country experts for preparation of reports, preparing court bundles and indexes and general admin tasks such as the photocopying and scanning of client documents. 

We have always found the attitude and work ethic of the diyLAW pro bono volunteers to be professional, of high standard and all are very capable of carrying out the various tasks assigned to them. Their assistance helps free up valuable time for our solicitors to spend more time on urgent casework.

Without the pro bono volunteers the Law Centre would struggle to meet the demands for our service, especially at a time when cut backs to Legal Aid and funding in the charity advice sector have lead to a reduction in staffing.

We are thankful for the help and assistance provided by diyLAW. We hope to continue with the pro bono placements from them in the future, thus enabling us to continue to reach out and assist some of the most vulnerable individuals in the community of Brent.

Alison Plaku

Office & Volunteer Manager

Brent Community Law Centre

389 High Road, Willesden, London NW10 2JR

direct Tel: (0208) 20 82 08 57 00 reception Tel: (00 44) (020) 8451 1126

Follow us at: @BrentlawCentre Brent Community Law Centre BCLC

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

What is Probate?

diyLAW are grateful to Megan Scourfield, an LLB student at Arden University, for her guide on Probate. This presentation is for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

Mediation Guide: Russell Evans

By Russell Evans, Manager of Resolve UK[i]

Mediation

Mediation is a private and confidential process focused on dispute resolution involving the appointment of a qualified Mediator to assist all parties to resolve their dispute. Mediation is highly effective in resolving disputes and is encouraged by the Courts & Judiciary. It often saves significant cost, stress and time.

Mediation Process

The mediation process is flexible. It can be designed to fit the circumstances of the dispute and the parties. It will usually involve private meetings between a party and the Mediator to discuss and consider issues and explore settlement options as well as joint meetings where these are approved by the parties. Comments made by any party in this process are confidential and can not be repeated in court. The process is designed to enable parties to TALK, THINK & EXPLORE SOLUTIONS in a safe environment. Settlement is concluded by a Settlement Agreement set out in writing which is duly signed.

Pre Action Protocols

Pre Action Protocols & Practice Directions are in place requiring parties to consider Mediation prior to going to court. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct

Para 1. Pre-action protocols explain the conduct and set out the steps the court would normally expect parties to take before commencing proceedings.

Para 8. Litigation should be a last resort. As part of a relevant pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction, the parties should consider whether negotiation or some other form of ADR might enable them to settle their dispute without commencing proceedings.

ADR

ADR means Alternative Dispute Resolution. It is an alternative to determination by the court. Mediation is the most effective and most common form of ADR process used.

Court Rules

The Civil Procedure Rules apply to all cases where court proceedings have been issued. Parties are obliged once again to consider mediation.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules

1.1

(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.

(2) Dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as is practicable –

(b) saving expense;

(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –

(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;

(f) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.

1.2 The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it –

(a) exercises any power given to it by the Rules

1.3 The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective.

1.4

(1) The court must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases.

(2) Active case management includes –

(e) encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution procedure

Sanctions for Failing to Mediate

The Court has power to and frequently imposes cost sanctions against parties who refuse to mediate.

PGF II SA v OMFS Company 1 Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1288

Lord Justice Briggs:

1. An unreasonable refusal to participate in ADR has, since 2004, been identified by this court as a form of unreasonable conduct of litigation to which the court may properly respond by imposing costs sanctions: see Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] 1WLR 3002.

2. The Halsey case was the first in which the Court of Appeal addressed, as a matter of principle, the extent to which it was appropriate for the court to use its powers to encourage parties to civil litigation to settle their disputes otherwise than by trial.

24. In the nine and a half years which have elapsed since the decision in the Halsey case, much has occurred to underline and confirm the wisdom of that conclusion.

34. In my judgment, the time has now come for this court firmly to endorse the advice given in Chapter 11.56 of the ADR Handbook, that silence in the face of an invitation to participate in ADR is, as a general rule, of itself unreasonable.

56. Finally, as is recognised by the weight placed on the judge’s decision in the passage in the ADR Handbook to which I have referred, this case sends out an important message to civil litigants, requiring them to engage with a serious invitation to participate in ADR ……. The court’s task in encouraging the more proportionate conduct of civil litigation is so important in current economic circumstances that it is appropriate to emphasise that message by a sanction which, even if a little more vigorous than I would have preferred, nonetheless operates pour encourager les autres.

Attempts to Avoid Mediation

The court is very weary of attempts to avoid mediation and these are usually given a short shrift response. Indeed Mr Justice Turner in Laporte characterised refusing to mediate as a ‘high risk’ strategy.

Burchell v Bullard (2005) EWCA 358

Lord Justice Ward

41. The stated reason for refusing mediation that the matter was too complex for mediation is plain nonsense.

Lord Justice Rix

50. I agree that mediation here would have had a reasonable prospect of success and that a party cannot rely on its own obstinacy to assert that it would not.

Laporte & Anor v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] EWHC 371 (QB)

Mr Justice Turner quoting Mr Justice Lightman - Hurst v Leeming [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 379

53. ‘what appears to be incapable of mediation before the mediation process begins often proves capable of satisfactory resolution.’

Other Judicial Dicta

Burchell v Bullard (2005) EWCA 358

Lord Justice Ward

43. Halsey has made plain not only the high rate of a successful outcome being achieved by mediation but also its established importance as a track to a just result running parallel with that of the court system. Both have a proper part to play in the administration of justice. The court has given its stamp of approval to mediation and it is now the legal profession which must become fully aware of and acknowledge its value. The profession can no longer with impunity shrug aside reasonable requests to mediate. The parties cannot ignore a proper request to mediate simply because it was made before the claim was issued.

Lord Justice Rix

50. The court is entitled to take an unreasonable refusal into account, even when it occurs before the start of formal proceedings.

Oliver and another -v- Symons and Another [2012] EWCA Civ 267

Lord Justice Ward

53. It depresses me that solicitors cannot at the very first interview persuade their clients to put their faith in the hands of an experienced mediator, a dispassionate third party, to guide them to a fair and sensible compromise of an unseemly battle which will otherwise blight their lives for months and months to come.

Consequences of Failing to Mediate

PGF II SA v OMFS Company 1 Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1288

Sanction Applied - Party penalised £250,000 Costs

Laporte & Anor v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] EWHC 371 (QB)

Sanction Applied - Party penalised One Third of Costs

Rolf v De Guerin [2011] EWCA Civ 78

Sanction Applied - Party penalised All of Costs

C 2018 Resolve UK

(This note is intended for outline information purposes only. It does not constitute or purport to be legal advice)

Russell Evans is a Director & Immediate Past President of the Hampshire Law Society. He is a full time Mediator and has judged the Finals of both the UK & International Mediation Competitions.

At ReSolve UK we have experts in: Property Disputes/ Business Disputes/ Insurance Claims/ Partnership Disputes/ Employment/ Construction/ Professional Negligence/ Sport/ Music & Entertainment/ Shipping & Maritime/ Care/ International Trade/ Director & Shareholder/ Inheritance Claims & Probate/ Trusts & Estates/ Charities/ Workplace/

Russell Evans russell@resolveuk.co.uk Mob: 07986 550969

www.resolveukmediation.co.uk

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

Mediation: Packing the Punches

By Russell Evans, Mediator & Lecturer

The Mediation Battleground: Getting to the Ring

After recently successfully concluding mediations for a world champion boxer, title contender and manager as well as a premiership football club, leading university and the Board of a Government Agency I have had cause not only for thought but time to reflect.

Mediations are focused on dispute resolution. Not all Mediations of course are the same. There can be many flavours and nuances and as experienced mediators will tell you similar disputes can play out in very different ways. As mediators we forever have to adapt to the circumstances and the situation which unravels before us.

There can of course be much pageantry and showmanship before the bell rings on the day of the mediation. Each mediation and indeed every fight comes with its own history.

And So the Bell Rings

And so the bell rings and we are off. In reality much mediation work has already been effected before the bell sounds. Parties of course can adopt many changes of position and stance: orthodox; south paw; counter punch as well as downright unconventional and sometimes even a jab, hook, cross and upper cut are displayed. There is frequently a sub plot. Mediations often unravel in intriguing ways. Merlin himself with his many potions and incantations may even be impressed; conjuring spells, directing focus, calming flashpoints.

Beyond the Scars

Mediations can certainly be challenging. They are certainly not a stroll in the park whether in London, Paris, Berlin or the leafier suburbs and can require a great deal of resolve and strength of purpose. Mediations often however present the best opportunity for parties to explore and resolve their dispute in the quickest, most diplomatic, least stressful and least injurious of ways. In any fight or gladiatorial contest both parties are invariably hurt and it is rare for any party to emerge unscathed. We can often lose sight of this amidst the emotional battle cries and the call to arms.

Surprises

Surprises and curve balls can abound and are often thrown into the mediation mix not only with new material disclosure but astonishing new revelations. It can often be as well to find this out before the ‘certainty’ of the trial. A recent revelation concerned a battling Lord, whistle-blowing as well as the Cabinet Office. Fortunately for all this did not play itself out on the front pages of the press.

High Noon

On occasion mediations have resembled more of a cold war James Bond spy plot rather than a classic exploration of issues and diplomatic engagement. The boxing mediation at times had all the atmosphere of the OK Corral albeit without colt 45s. The mediation concluded with lawyers and mediator apace marching up Chancery Lane and signing the settlement agreement in the street outside of our hallowed hall. One of the lawyers involved in the ‘boxing ring’ intended to wreak his wrath or more fortunately relief the following day on a racing circuit with or without the classic Aston Martin. James Bond eat your heart out.

The Beautiful Art: Using Diplomacy

As Mediators we are there to serve all parties, to use, adapt and adopt whatever mediation methods and techniques help the parties on their path to resolution. Mediation can sometimes be a shadowy world but one in which much can be achieved behind closed doors.

Finding a Language: Enabling Communication

As Mediators we often enable discussions to take place which would not ordinarily happen. We can facilitate discussions between parties, discussions between lawyers and indeed the release of documentation and information in a diplomatic way. Mediation provides the safety of confidentiality which surrounds the mediation process. Comments can be made to the mediator that you may not want a judge or indeed the other party to hear. Comments made at the mediation also can not be repeated in court. The court will often simply see the settlement fait accompli and in many cases the court process can be avoided altogether.

Protecting Confidentiality

Recent mediations have presented opportunities for both lead front and back page stories as well as opportunities to initiate further speculation and conflict. I have had numerous lawyers and parties tell me that there were no prospects of resolution only to be pleasantly surprised. Some combatants have even walked away linked arm in arm.

Beyond the Rules

Mediation is of course a part of every lawyer’s dispute resolution armoury and its consideration is mandated under both Pre Action Protocols and the Civil Procedure Rules. Its timely adoption can sometimes save not only months but years of heartache.

The Mediation World

What then of the Mediation World? Mediation is certainly high on Lord Briggs agenda as most will know. Some of you may even have had the pleasure of attending Lord Briggs talk in November 2017. The Civil Justice Council for its part has backed the presumptive use of mediation as set out in its 98 page report. At the CIArb Mediation Conference in September 2018 focus was placed on topics ranging from; high conflict parties; challenges and dilemmas to mediation mastery. We have sadly now lost one of the true mediation masters David Richbell a friend who a number of you will know.

I recently had the pleasure of attending another Talk at the Oxford University Policy Institute given by another friend Dr Nikita Chiu about War & Peace & Space. As a species we will certainly return to the stars and other celestial bodies. Mediation in Space however may be some way off. I don’t think that I will become an astronaut just yet.

Finding Solutions

On the earthly stage whether your dispute is commercial, property or contentious probate for some great institution or other greater cause we perhaps need to consider not only ADR but IDR ‘intelligent dispute resolution’. There may be fights to be had but often cleverer ways to achieve your goal. Even a boxer will pick his fights carefully.

Fighting the Good Fight

We are all fighters in our own way. Resolution of course can be worthwhile fighting for.

C 2018 Resolve UK

Russell Evans lectures on Mediation for the Law Society, RICS & CISI. He is a full time Mediator and has judged the Finals of both the UK & International Mediation Competitions.

Russell has conducted mediations involving ftse companies, government agencies, premiership football clubs, world sports champions, national charities with royal patrons as well as the family of a Law Lord.

Russell Evans russell@resolveuk.co.uk Mob: 07986 550969

Resolve UK: Ministry of Justice approved Mediation Provider

At ReSolve UK we have experts in: Property Disputes/ Business Disputes/ Insurance Claims/ Partnership Disputes/ Employment/ Construction/ Professional Negligence/ Sport/ Music & Entertainment/ Shipping & Maritime/ Care/ International Trade/ Director & Shareholder/ Inheritance Claims & Probate/ Trusts & Estates/ Charities/ Workplace/

Ministry of Justice Approved Mediators

Finding Solutions For You

www.resolveukmediation.co.uk

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

Disclosure Working Group Press Announcement

We share the Disclosure Working Group`s latest update that was published at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/press-annoucement-disclosure-pilot-approved-by-cprc.pdf

Disclosure Working Group Press Announcement

We believe this is crucial for litigants in person.

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

A Guide to Family Mediation

diyLAW are grateful to William Rigg, an LLB student at Arden University, for his guide on Family Mediation. This is for general information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

---

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

Preparing Your Bundle Online

diyLAW is grateful to Paul Sachs of www.caselines.co.uk for providing this brief but informative guide to bundling up your documents for court.

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.

Personal Debt Information

diyLAW is grateful to David Bloom of www.davidandgoliathdebtadvice.com for providing this video on personal debt information.

Please note this video is for information only and no reliance must be placed on it and that neither David Bloom nor diyLAW are responsible for any actions taken in consequence. The video has been recorded in 2014 and there have been some legal developments since then.

---

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.