Beyond our case — what we've learned along the way
The trials and tribulations of a justice system failing the public.
Fighting our own case meant experiencing first-hand how the civil justice system actually works — rather than how it is supposed to work. These are the problems we encountered along the way, many of which we have since heard echoed by others trying to navigate the same court system.
01
Finding 01
The small claims court disclosure — a 'legal loophole'
IIn higher-value civil claims, Part 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires both sides to disclose relevant documents — including anything that damages their own case or supports their opponent's. Neither side gets to show only the version of events which suits them.
That rule doesn't apply to the Small Claims Court. Here, each side only has to produce what they intend to rely on. Nothing obligates either party to hand over a document that undermines their own position.
A judge rules on the evidence put in front of them. If the other side with-holds evidence contradicting their own case, and simply never discloses it, the judge decides on what they can see — not on the "truth". Undisclosed evidence might as well not exist.
Why it matters
A process designed to keep small claims simple and low-cost, can also make it easier to manipulate by those who know the rules and how to break them — and that is a problem for 'ordinary people' who are least able to fight back.
02
Finding 02
Judicial independence can become a barrier to a judge's accountability
Judicial independence exists for a good reason: judges need to be free to make rulings without political interference. But we found the same principle also puts a judge's procedural decisions — like how a trial gets recorded — beyond anyone's reach to overturn when the judge "gets it wrong".
The Ministry of Justice confirmed this: allowing the company solicitor to record the trial instead of the court, was the judge's decision entirely, so Government had no authority to comment.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office told us pretty much the same. Although they were unable to review our allegations of judicial misconduct, because 'part' of the trial where the judge 'contaminated his mind' was deleted — the JCIO can only investigate a judge's personal conduct, such as: discourtesy, discrimination, or failing to declare a conflict of interest — and not a judge's decision "not" to record a trial. This, the JCIO stated, was beyond their remit for investigation.
That then leaves only one option: appeal, at your 'own' expense. But if you can't afford to, then the judge's decision simply continues to stand — whether it's right or wrong.
Our appeal failed. It was heard in the 'same court' where the original trial took place, by a judge in the 'same court' as the trial judge. The appeal judge's view appeared to be that the 'small claims court procedure' operates to a more lenient standard, giving judges greater freedom to conduct the trial as 'they see fit'. From there, the only options left were the Court of Appeal, or to start a new case in the High Court — both requiring funding out of our own pockets. Or just to live with a decision that is, quite plainly, a "miscarriage of justice".
Why it matters
The safeguard of 'judicial independence' is meant to protect judges from improper pressure, but it can also become a wall where complaints cannot get past — and correcting what's left behind that wall comes at a cost, which the public has to bear alone.
03
Finding 03
Fraud is a crime — until it happens in a civil court
Discovering fraud inside a civil case changes nothing. To actually pursue it, you need to start again — a brand new claim, funded entirely out of your own pocket — with no guarantee it will lead anywhere.
That's exactly what we found. Once we traced the fake document back to its source, the company owner told us quite plainly: he 'never' wrote it, and we 'never' owed any money or debt to his company. Proving that meant starting from zero — no support, just us, and the extensive costs.
Forgery is a crime. Everyone we approached agreed with that — but then refused to touch it. The Solicitors Regulation Authority told us it was for the court to determine. Action Fraud told us outright that this was a serious crime, which it had to go to the Serious Fraud Office. The Serious Fraud Office told us they don't take cases directly from members of the public. The Crown Prosecution Service wouldn't act without the police. The police sent us straight back to Action Fraud — and then back to the very court which had already ruled against us. Round and round, with nowhere to go.
Then when we took it back to that same court, it didn't investigate the fraud. Instead, it shut the door on us, and warned us never to raise it again!
Why it matters
When no single body will call a crime a crime, the burden is pushed back onto the very person it was committed against — the victim — to fight the system that was supposed to protect them.
04
Finding 04
The justice system was built for 'the people' yet it has forgotten why it exists!
The small claims track was built for lower-value disputes, for the average person to bring or defend claims without employing a solicitor or barrister. It was initially labelled a simple and cheap option, where you didn't need 'legal representation' to be heard.
But, that's not who's using it anymore. Companies are routinely bringing cases to the small claims court with legal represnetation, fighting ordinary people who have no legal training, and with no realistic way to defend themselves. The court's own rules (CPR 1.1), say that parties should be on an 'equal footing'. In practice, however, having legal representation on one side and none on the other, creates a significant imbalance — whatever that rule intends.
Dragging it out a case costs a solicitor nothing. In fact, it generates more billable work for them, which their client or the opposing side will have to pay.
Legal aid has been cut back, and few solicitors opt take on small claims court cases through no-win-no-fee — the amounts involved are often too small to make it worth their while. This leaves many people having to 'represent themselves'. Yet the courts are not lenient: self-represented parties are expected to know the 'rules' and 'law' the same as any professional lawyer. The side the system was 'meant to protect' is now the side with the least support.
And, if that's what the small claims track has become, there is no case for letting solicitors and barristers in on one side only. It is either a level playing field, or it isn't — it cannot be both!
Why it matters
A system built so ordinary people don't need a lawyer, only works if the other side doesn't bring one either.