The Issue
CPR 3.1A requires the court to have regard to the fact that a party is unrepresented and to adopt appropriate procedures. An unrepresented party facing leading counsel on complex fraud, conveyancing, escrow, metadata and receiver issues requires adjustment — not equal treatment in the form of identical procedural demands on vastly unequal resources.
The Law: How It Should Operate
CPR 3.1A — in proceedings involving an unrepresented party, the court must have regard to that fact and adopt an appropriate procedure. This is a mandatory obligation, not discretionary charity. The rule exists because access to justice requires not merely formal participation but effective participation.
How It Operated in Lawrence v HNW
Litigants in person were required to answer complex fraud, escrow, receiver, TOLATA, possession and appellate issues without proportionate time, disclosure, expert evidence or protective adjustment. Their disadvantage was treated as their own procedural default rather than as a failure of the court's obligation under CPR 3.1A.
"The question is not whether one court reached one adverse result. It is that the same failure of protection recurred across courts, tribunals, administration, policing and oversight, making the pattern visible only because the case passed through so many forums."
— Open Letter to the Lord Chancellor, May 2026