The Challenges of Defending Cases After a Litigant in Person Files a Defence
When a defendant chooses to represent themselves as a litigant in person (LIP) and files a defence, or worse, attends a hearing and loses, the process of defending their case becomes significantly more complex, costly, and time-consuming. At Joanna Connolly Solicitors, we frequently encounter clients who initially attempt to navigate the legal system alone, only to seek professional help when complications arise. While the instinct to self-represent is understandable, particularly to save costs, it often leads to unintended consequences that make subsequent legal representation more challenging. Below, we explore why defending cases after an LIP has filed a defence—or lost at a hearing—creates additional hurdles.
The Complications of a Self-Filed Defence
When a defendant files a defence as a litigant in person, they often do so without a full understanding of legal principles, procedural rules, or the specific requirements of the court. Common issues include poorly drafted defences that fail to address key legal points, inclusion of irrelevant information, or omission of critical arguments that could strengthen the case. These errors can weaken the defendant’s position from the outset, making it harder for a solicitor to step in and rectify the situation.
For example, a poorly constructed defence may inadvertently admit liability or fail to raise valid legal defences. Amending a defence after it has been filed requires court permission, which can involve additional time, court fees, and potentially a hearing to justify the changes. Courts may also view amendments with scepticism, particularly if the claimant argues that the original defence has prejudiced their case preparation. This process not only increases legal fees but also delays resolution, as the solicitor must unravel the LIP’s work before moving forward.
The majority of defences we se filed by LIP’s are based on information gleaned from the internet, or self-help groups. Such defences may be at best flawed and at worst can be complete nonsense. Unfortunately, the internet is full of conflicting advice and misinformation. Further, the ability of a LIP to argue such defences in court is often questionable.
The Added Burden of a Lost Hearing
The challenges escalate significantly if the LIP has already attended a hearing and lost. A loss at a hearing—whether a summary judgment, an interim application, or a full trial—creates a court decision that constrains future legal options. Overturning a court’s ruling requires an appeal, which is a complex and costly process with strict deadlines and grounds. Appeals are rarely granted unless there is evidence of a serious procedural error or misapplication of the law, and the LIP’s lack of legal expertise often means such errors are not properly documented or argued at the initial hearing.
Furthermore, a lost hearing may result in adverse cost orders, where the defendant is ordered to pay the claimant’s legal costs. These costs can mount quickly, adding financial pressure to an already difficult situation. When a solicitor is instructed post-hearing, they must review extensive court records, hearing transcripts, and prior submissions to identify viable grounds for appeal or alternative strategies. This retrospective analysis is far more time-intensive than building a case from scratch, driving up legal fees and extending the timeline for resolution.
Why Costs and Time Increase
The financial and temporal burden of defending a case after LIP involvement stems from several factors:
- Correcting Mistakes: Solicitors must spend significant time reviewing and amending flawed documents or addressing procedural missteps, such as missed deadlines or improper filings.
- Court Applications: Amending a defence or seeking to set aside a judgment requires formal applications to the court, often accompanied by hearings, which incur additional fees for both legal representation and court costs.
- Increased Complexity: A lost hearing or poorly filed defence narrows the available legal options, forcing solicitors to pursue more complex routes, such as appeals or negotiations under less favorable conditions.
- Opponent’s Advantage: Claimants may exploit errors made by LIPs, strengthening their position and making settlement or defense more difficult, which prolongs the case and increases costs.
The Value of Early Legal Advice
While self-representation may seem cost-effective initially, the long-term consequences often outweigh the short-term savings. At Joanna Connolly Solicitors, we strongly recommend seeking professional legal advice at the earliest possible time, and certainly before filing a defence or attending a hearing. Early intervention allows us to craft a robust defence, comply with court procedures, and position your case for the best possible outcome, whether through settlement or litigation. By engaging a solicitor from the outset, you can avoid the pitfalls that make subsequent representation more difficult, expensive, and protracted.
If you’ve already filed a defence or attended a hearing as a litigant in person, don’t despair—it’s not too late to seek help. We can still assess your case, identify viable options, and work to mitigate the challenges created by prior self-representation. However, the sooner you act, the more effectively we can manage costs and streamline the process.
Contact Us Today
Navigating the legal system without professional guidance is fraught with risks that can complicate your case and inflate costs. If you’re facing a legal dispute or need assistance after acting as a litigant in person, contact Joanna Connolly Solicitors today. Our dedicated team is here to provide expert advice, protect your interests, and help you achieve a favourable resolution as efficiently as possible. Call us or visit our website to schedule a consultation and take the first step toward a stronger defence.