Mainline Pipelines Ltd v Thomas Derrick Phillips
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Paul Matthews |
| Judgment Date | 23 August 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 2146 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: PT-2022-BRS-000133 |
[2023] EWHC 2146 (Ch)
HHJ Paul Matthews
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Case No: PT-2022-BRS-000133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN BRISTOL
PROPERTY TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD)
Bristol Civil Justice Centre
2 Redcliff Street, Bristol, BS1 6GR
Nicholas Taggart (instructed by Veale Wasbrough Vizards LLP) for the Claimant The First Defendant in person
The Second Defendant was not present
Hearing date: 8 August 2023
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This judgment was handed down remotely at 11 am on 23 August 2023 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
Introduction
This is my judgment on an application made by the claimant in this claim by notice dated 31 May 2023 (sealed 8 June 2023) for summary judgment in the claim. That claim is for a final injunction, costs and a further or other relief. It arises in the context of a dispute between the parties about the repair of a multi-fuel pipeline which runs under part of the defendants' farm. The defendants decline to allow the claimant access to the pipeline for the purposes of repair without substantial compensation being agreed in advance. The claimant relies on the terms of a lease for 99 years granted by the defendants' predecessors in title in 1972. The claimant has been represented by experienced solicitors and counsel. The defendants are litigants in person. Only the first defendant attended the hearing. He told me that he was speaking for his wife as well.
The claim itself was commenced by claim form issued on 16 November 2022. It was accompanied by particulars of claim dated 2 November 2022. The defendants served an informal, and undated, defence, in unnumbered paragraphs. It was not supported by a statement of truth, as required by CPR rule 22.1(1)(a). The consequence is that it is liable to be struck out ( CPR rule 22.2(2)), and in the meantime cannot be relied upon as evidence of the facts stated within it ( CPR rule 22.2(1)(b)). On 31 May 2023 the claimant served a reply, together with a copy of the defence with paragraph numbers added for ease of reference. At the same time, the claimant also issued the present application notice, for summary judgment on the claim. The application is supported by three witness statements.
The first is from Carl Scott, dated 18 May 2023, who is employed on behalf of the claimant. He gives evidence relating to meetings between the claimant's representatives and the first defendant at the site. The second is dated 22 May 2023. It is from Timothy Rudd. He is also employed on behalf of the claimant, and gives evidence concerning certain technical matters connected with the repair of the pipeline. The third is dated 31 May 2023, and is from Philip Sheppard, the claimant's solicitor, who gives certain formal evidence relating to the summary judgment application.
The defendants have not served any formal evidence in opposition, but there is in the correspondence an informal, supplementary statement from the first defendant dated 13 June 2023. In addition, they sent an email dated 3 August 2023 to the court attaching certain other documents which they sought to place before the court. I have looked at both of these. Neither the supplementary statement nor the email however contains a statement of truth, and hence either might be the subject of a court direction that it cannot be relied on as evidence ( CPR rule 22.3). I note that the claimant's solicitors, in an email of 24 July 2023 to the defendants, pointed out to them that they had not yet filed or served any formal evidence in response to the application, and invited them to do so, so that it might be considered by the claimant, and also included in the bundles to be placed before the court. The defendants appear not to have taken up this invitation.
The position of litigants in person
I have already said that the defendants are litigants in person, and that the first defendant appeared before me at the hearing. He addressed me with courtesy and with care, as he explained his and his wife's concerns about the effects of these works upon the land, and about what might happen if development were permitted on other fields of theirs under which the pipeline passes. But he is a layman and not a lawyer, so his submissions, clear and concise as they were, were of limited assistance to me in considering the legal questions which I have to decide. I do not criticise the defendants for taking this course. Far from it. In this country (unlike in many European countries) it is every person's right not to employ a lawyer, but to represent him- or herself in court proceedings.
However, the other side of the coin is that there is no special set of rules in this country for litigants in person. As a general proposition, we do not have two sets of rules, one for those with lawyers and one for those without. We have only one set, which (with a few exceptions) applies to everyone. Litigants in person need to know this. A relatively recent decision of the Supreme Court, in a case called Barton v Wright Hassall [2018] 1 WLR 1119, makes clear that lack of legal representation will not usually justify applying to litigants in person a lower standard of compliance with rules or orders of the court. In the present case this is so because the rules do not in any respect relevant to the disposal of this application distinguish between represented and unrepresented parties.
Moreover, litigants in person, in choosing to self-represent, cannot excuse themselves from compliance by saying that they do not know the rules. It is their responsibility, in choosing to take part personally in formal legal proceedings, rather than by way of professional legal representation, to make themselves aware of the relevant procedural rules, and to follow them. Apart from the many textbooks and handbooks on civil procedure which are published and usually available for consultation in libraries, the relevant rules themselves are available, without charge, via the internet from the Ministry of Justice website. There are many other websites, too, some providing the full texts of legislation and of caselaw precedents, and others proffering free legal advice. In addition, there are Citizen's Advice Bureaux and law centres which offer free legal advice.
I note that, in many of the letters and emails from the claimant's solicitors to the defendants, the former positively urged the latter to take legal advice. This was a sensible suggestion. Many litigants in person (though not the defendants in this case) seem to think that it is the judge's job to look after their interests, or at any rate that the judge will do this, and even advise them what to do. But the judge cannot do any of this this. The judge is both independent of the parties and impartial between them. The parties must arrange for their own legal advice.
In the modern legal services market, it is perfectly possible to obtain short, limited advice on a point of construction from solicitors, or from a barrister operating via direct access, at modest cost without engaging lawyers to defend the whole proceedings. At one stage (in a letter dated 24 March 2021 to the first defendant) the claimant even offered to contribute £400 plus VAT to the cost of taking that advice. That was much more than it was obliged to do. In all the circumstances, it is unfortunate that the defendants did not take up this offer. It might have saved the need for this expensive litigation.
I have already mentioned that the defendants' defence is not in accordance with the rules. Nor is the first defendant's supplementary statement of 13 June 2023 or the defendants' email of 3 August 2023. Litigants in person need to understand that, other than in trivial respects, the court is not going simply to ignore their failure to follow the appropriate procedures, or (worse) to treat them as though they had in fact complied. That is not fair on those who do comply. A failure to follow the rules is not without consequences. It imposes extra costs on other litigants (who, if they are commercial enterprises, may have to pass those costs on to their customers in higher prices) and makes litigation slower and more complicated, and thus more expensive for everyone. More court- and judge-time is needed to deal simply with putting things right, rather than advancing the resolution process. This generally not only makes things worse for the litigants themselves, but it also lengthens the time that must be spent by other litigants in waiting their turn to be heard.
Thus, the failures by the defendants to follow the rules will have made matters more complicated, slower and expensive. The other party (here, the claimant) will probably have incurred more costs than it need have done. Quite often the party in breach ends up worse off as a result. However, this case turns on questions of the legal interpretation of particular documents, and other matters of law, and it is now the subject of an application for summary judgment. So, in terms of the overall result, in all the circumstances of the present case I do not think that those failures will have made any substantial difference to the defendants' own situation. Apart from questions of possible liability to pay costs, they are neither better nor worse off as a result.
Background
The background to this matter is as follows. The claimant owns and operates a cross-country network of multifuel pipelines which transport various fuels from Milford Haven...
To continue reading
Request your trial