Litigants in Person. And Two Dogs.
In my blog of April 2015 – link here – I referred to the perhaps unforeseen consequences of reforms in Court procedures following the guidance of Lord Woolf.
Taken together with continuing reductions in legal aid availability the results seem to be that unrepresented Litigants are increasingly clogging up the Court system.
This is usually not done on purpose, but because in the absence of a skilled lawyer to represent him, a litigant in person is liable to become blinded by the inherent rightness of his grievance [according to him], and unable to understand when or why it is time to give up.
In my earlier article I gave an example in the way even a clever litigant who is unpresented, could misunderstand the functions and powers of the Court. This can result in the production of pleadings and paperwork requiring many hours of the Courts time in respect of claims which have no prospect of success whatsoever.
Partly the problem might even be the innate politeness of the Judges in Britain.
They rarely reduce their findings to a single sentence which can be given in ten minutes.
Such as “Your pleadings are nonsense: Get out of my Court”.
There is an academic report link here – which highlights the difficulty caused by the complexity of the law coupled with the trend to deny Litigants access to affordable Lawyers.
However as a recent case makes it plain, not every litigant-in-person is the sort of right-hearted, driven but misguided individual the Courts and academics would properly wish to assist. Not at all.
How about the case of Sabrina Moosun, her children, and her two dogs?
The case is a catalogue of determined pig-headedness and ignorance. It must have cost unknown thousands of pounds.
In that, not too remarkable unfortunately. But it is the only case I have ever seen in which the case heading names the parties to the case as including “and two dogs”
Ms Moosun has brought proceedings against a leading firm of London Solicitors and HSBC bank – not only on behalf of herself and her two children but also naming her two dogs!
Here is the link to the case which shows the Plaintiff named as including two dogs. Link here
I hope I do not disappoint you too much when I draw your attention to paragraph 10 – the Judge has said – after all due consideration and pauses [paws? Sorry.] for thought – that “a dog is not a person” and is not allowed to bring cases to Court. As the Judge remarked, how would the dogs pay, if they lose?
Ms Moosun appears to be someone who is unable to accept that she has done wrong and is unable to accept the consequences and is unable to accept “No” for an answer.
This lady made the mistake of extending her cottage without planning permission. Instead of saying “sorry” and accepting her error and its consequences, she has continued year after year to bring claims against third parties in a forlorn effort to blame someone else for her predicament.
The list of Court applications she has made, which includes failed applications for enforcement notices and judicial reviews and further appeals and applications for leave to appeal coupled with entirely unjustified claims against solicitors and banks for damages of nearly four million pounds without the slightest hint of a reason, shows an entirely depressing waste of the resources of the Courts – it just goes on and on and has taken nearly eight years.
At last the Courts have decided that Mrs Moosun is a person who should not be allowed to enter a Claim in any Civil Court in England for at least the next 2 years.
It appears that there is no such restriction in respect of the dogs. [Is this an example of Wuff justice? Forgive me.]
A song about Dogs – Link here
If you would like to have your Company’s Notarial work done properly, including assisting with Foreign Court Pleadings and Affidavits, do please get in touch – You can contact me or Louise here at AtkinsonNotary E7 Joseph’s Well Leeds LS3 1AB, phone 0113 8160116 and email email@example.com