What Standards of Pleadings are Expected of 'Litigants in Person'? Recent Case Sees Costs Awarded Against Claimant
In the recent case of Liddington v 2gether NHS Foundation Trust, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the Employment Tribunal's decision to award costs against a litigant in person who failed to properly particularise her claim.
The Facts
The claimant, Ms Liddington was a community practitioner working for the respondent, 2gether NHS Foundation Trust (NHS). In December 2012, Ms Liddington made a safeguarding referral in relation to a patient care issue at a private care home, which she asserted was a protected disclosure.
As a result of the disclosure, she complained that she suffered detriments and was ultimately dismissed. After her dismissal, Ms Liddington brought a number of claims including constructive unfair dismissal, religious discrimination and whistleblowing.
The Employment Tribunal
The Employment Tribunal (ET) did not regard Ms Liddington's claims as adequately particularised. She had not identified important information which was essential for the claims to proceed, and for the NHS to prepare its defence. A number of attempts were made to help Ms Liddington particularise her claims over several preliminary hearings, but she failed to do so.
At a further preliminary hearing, the ET held that Ms Liddington's failure to particularise her claims amounted to unreasonable conduct. As a litigant in person, Ms Liddington was not to be held to the standards of a lawyer. However, given the number of preliminary hearings and the assistance the tribunal had given her, she should have been able to particularise dates and events in order to form the basis of her complaints. Due to Ms Liddington's failure to provide the relevant particulars, the ET concluded that her claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
The ET ordered Ms Liddington to pay the NHS' costs of £1,481 for a prior hearing. Ms Liddington appealed unsuccessfully to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT found that the ET did not make any error of law in reaching its conclusions, and that Ms Liddington should still pay the NHS' costs for the previous hearing.
Best Practice
This case demonstrates that ultimately, litigants in person are expected to properly particularise their claims, albeit not to the same standard as a lawyer. The tribunal will however often adopt a lenient approach to litigants in person, in order to given them every possible opportunity to take action before an Order is imposed.