Procedure (see also: Environmental impact assessment, European Convention on Human Rights) - Haiselden v P&O Properties Limited (5 May 1998) Court of Appeal

In February 1996 Mr Haiselden suffered an injury whilst at work. As a litigant in person he sued his employer, P&O Properties Limited, for damages expressly limited to a sum not exceeding £1,000. The case ought to have been transferred automatically to the small claims procedure for arbitration (pursuant to Order 19, Rule 3 of the County Court Rules). However, because of a Court clerical error, the case was instead listed for trial at Lambeth County Court. Unaware of the mistake, Mr Haiselden accordingly provided the necessary paperwork and the £100 fee for setting the case down for trial. P&O Properties Limited, although aware of the mistake made by the Court, requested further and better particulars, believing that the Court error was to its advantage as it would recover greater costs in the County Court should it succeed. In June 1997, the case came before Lambeth County Court. The action was dismissed and Mr Haiselden was ordered to pay P&O Properties Limited's costs on County Court Scale 1. Mr Haiselden appealed on the basis that the only costs that could have been awarded against him were those specified by Order 19 of the County Court Rules. In allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that a litigant in person, intending to invoke the arbitration procedure in the County Court specifically to avoid the risk of incurring liability for a defendant's costs, should not be deprived of that protection. P&O Properties Limited had an obligation to draw to Mr Haiselden's and the Court's attention the error that had been made. The justice of the case demanded that Mr Haiselden's liability to P&O Properties Limited should be limited to such costs as would have been recovered in arbitration. This case is of interest where litigation involves a litigant in person is often the case in environmental law. (NLD, 6 May 1998)