The Appointment of Litigation Friends

Book your free initial call

    We endeavour to make an initial response to all enquiries within 24 hours but please be aware that on some occasions due to prior commitments or volume of calls we will not be able to respond in that time frame. We also operate a 48 hour return policy. This return policy means that if we have not responded with 48 hours of your initial enquiry we are unable to do so due to current workloads and we will destroy your data accordingly. This policy ensures you are not left waiting and have the certainty that your data is not compromised. In most instances however we are able to make contact within a 24 hour time frame. Please note our free initial advice service is available to clients at our total discretion and if your case is of a complex nature we may not be able to offer you a free consultation. However in these instances we will advise you what the charge would be for an initial fixed fee consultation.
  • (view our privacy statement)
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal held, in Jhuti v Royal Mail, that a rule can be applied into tribunal rules to provide for the appointment of a litigation friend.

Vulnerable individuals must be able to fully participate in proceedings, any decisions made without taking into account the need to safeguard and protect the welfare of a vulnerable person would be outside the law. In such a case where it is essential to involve a litigation friend directions can be made to allow their involvement during those parts of the hearing where it is necessary. This can be applied under the tribunal’s power to manage its own procedure. If this did not happen, there would be a breach of common law duty if a litigant was unable to make representations, give and test evidence or instruct a solicitor.

In Jhuti v Royal Mail, the Law Society made the decision to intervene in the case for the mentally vulnerable claimant who needed to appoint a litigation friend. It argued that this met the common law duty of fairness and right of access to the courts and also that it avoided placing the solicitor in conflict with the ethical duty that the client had capacity.
Coincidentally, in a case involving immigration tribunals in the Court of Appeal – AM (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department– the Court held an identical provision should be implied into the immigration rules despite no express provision existing for a litigation friend. Underhill LJ expressed, at para 48, a “strong provisional view” that a previous EAT ruling of his, holding the contrary, was incorrect.

Written by
Edward Aston
22nd August 2017