Tinkler and Another v Elliott: CA 10 Oct 2012

The claimant was a litigant in person who said that he had misunderstood the relevant provision of the CPR.
Maurice Kay LJ said: ‘I accept that there may be facts and circumstances in relation to a litigant in person which may go to an assessment of promptness but, in my judgment they will only operate close to the margins. An opponent to a litigant in person is entitled to assume finality without expecting excessive indulgence to be extended to the litigant in person. It seems to me that, on any view, the fact that a litigant in person ‘did not really understand’ or ‘did not appreciate’ the procedural courses open to him for months does not entitle him to extra indulgence.’


Maurice Kay VP, Munby, Lewisn LJJ


[2012] EWCA Civ 1289




Civil Procedure Rules 39.3(3)


England and Wales


See AlsoTinkler and Another v Elliott CA 7-Jul-2011
Application for leave to appeal. Litigant in person failing to understand CPR. Leave granted. . .
Appeal fromTinkler and Another v Elliott QBD 15-Mar-2012
The defendant, subject to a civil restraint order, sought leave to appeal against judgment entered against him in his absence. . .

Cited by:

CitedMcGrath v Independent Print Ltd QBD 26-Jul-2013
The claimant alleged defamation in an article on the defendant’s web-site discussing a failure of his earlier defamation action. He now sought directions for a jury trial. . .
See AlsoTinkler and Another v Elliott CA 7-May-2014
The defendant appealed against permission given to the claimant to bring allegations of contempt of court. The claimant was acting in person. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.464784