Summary

The judgment dealt with the defendant's application for reverse summary judgment or to strike out the claimant's claim and the claimant's application to strike out the defendant's application and for a stay of related proceedings. The claimant attempted to submit a non-compliant report as 'independent expert evidence' to support his application without obtaining permission to do so.

Learning points

Learning points for Litigants in Person

• Make sure you understand and comply with the relevant rules and regulations which apply to your case.

• Take full advantage of the many resources and support that are available to assist Litigants in Person ('LiP'), such as the Handbook issued by the Civil sub-Committee of the Committee of the Council of Circuit Judges in England and Wales, the Resources for Litigants in Person, and options for free legal advice such as Getting free legal advice | The Law Society.

Learning points for experts

• Be cautious when accepting instructions from a LiP. It is likely that they will have an imperfect, or even limited, understanding of the relevant procedural rules.

• Ensure that you fully understand how they intend to use your expert report. 

• Listen to our podcast on Acting for litigants in person.

• Watch out for our Guidance on 'Acting for a Litigant in Person' for advice on acting for a LiP and what to do when your previously represented party becomes a LiP.

The case

The judgment dealt with the defendant's application for reverse summary judgment or to strike out the claimant's claim and the claimant's application to strike out the defendant's application and for a stay of related proceedings. 

The purported expert evidence

The claimant submitted a witness statement in support of his application which was accompanied by what was described as an independent expert report. 

Before discussing the purported expert report, the Master noted that there is no entitlement to rely on expert evidence at all without permission from the court, which was rarely granted for interim applications. Any expert evidence would be limited to issues on which the court considered it was reasonably required to resolve the claim. 

The Master noted that the claimant had not sought permission to rely on expert evidence and that the purported 'expert report' was not CPR compliant. The proposed 'expert' appeared to have adopted the role of both "judge and jury", providing a review of the evidence as he understood it, his view on the conduct of His Majesty's Land Registry based in part on supposition and/or assertion, his view on the application of the law to those findings, and then his recommendations.

The Master found that "[t]his mix of submissions and opinion was not CPR 35 compliant expert evidence." He added that even if the claimant had sought permission to rely on the report as expert evidence, that permission would have been refused.