Party Litigants and Effective Case Management

Fairness Does Not Mean Unlimited Indulgence

More and more, we are seeing cases conducted in the Sheriff Courts by Party Litigants, that is, private, non-legally qualified individuals who represent themselves in civil litigation, as they are entitled to do under the Civil Procedure Rules. They will often be pitting themselves against seasoned litigators. Notwithstanding, the Rules apply to them just as they apply to qualified solicitors.

This blog looks at the balance between Party Litigants getting a bit of leeway from the Court, and ensuring fairness for the represented party. This blog looks at that balance and the impact of a recent post-script issued by the Sheriff Appeal Court in the decision of Curran v Sinclair &c (2026), which serves as a reminder that fairness to party litigants must be balanced against the efficient use of court resources.

The case involved litigation that ran for around five years in which our Stephen Forsyth, Partner in our Commercial Dispute Resolution team, acted for the Defender against a Party Litigant, generating extensive procedure, multiple hearings, several discharged proofs and ultimately a six-day proof and appeal. The court was critical of the disproportionate use of judicial resources and observed that the litigation had progressed at a “glacial pace”. It considered that opportunities for firm case management had been missed and emphasised that judges should not hesitate to intervene where proceedings become unfocused, repetitive or unnecessarily prolonged.

Importantly, the court reaffirmed that party litigants are entitled to fairness, but not special treatment. The court emphasised that judges have both the power and the responsibility to actively manage proceedings where a litigant’s conduct threatens to derail the efficient progress of a case.

Among the case management tools endorsed by the court were:

• Limiting written submissions.
• Restricting unnecessary reliance on legal authorities.
• Capping opportunities to amend pleadings.
• Requiring witness statements in advance.
• Narrowing proofs to genuinely relevant issues.
• Refusing to discharge proof diets without good reason.
• Linking further procedure to payment of outstanding expenses.

For practitioners navigating protracted litigation involving party litigants, the decision provides welcome support for early and robust case management. The message from the court is clear: while access to justice remains fundamental, court proceedings cannot be allowed to become an endless forum for personal grievances or disproportionate use of public resources.

For practitioners, the judgment is a welcome endorsement of proactive case management. Solicitors faced with repeated delays, sprawling pleadings or procedural abuse should feel encouraged to seek judicial intervention at an early stage. Detailed records of delays, unnecessary motions and repeated amendments may also prove valuable when resisting further procedural indulgences or seeking expenses.

The decision should not be read as hostility towards party litigants. Many self-represented litigants conduct their cases responsibly and make effective use of the court system. Rather, the message is that fairness must extend to all court users, including opposing parties awaiting resolution of their disputes and litigants waiting for scarce court time.

The overarching lesson from Curran v Sinclair & Co is clear: access to justice does not require unlimited indulgence. Effective case management is not an obstacle to justice but an essential part of delivering it. Where proceedings become disproportionate, the courts have both the power and the duty to bring them back under control.

At Gilson Gray, our Commercial Dispute Resolution team has extensive experience acting for businesses, individuals and insurers in complex disputes throughout Scotland. Whether facing a represented opponent or a party litigant, we focus on identifying the real issues, obtaining effective case management and progressing actions efficiently towards resolution. From pre-action advice through to proof and appeal, our team is committed to delivering practical, strategic and commercially focused litigation support while ensuring that cases remain proportionate, focused and moving forward.

If you require any advice in relation to a commercial dispute, please reach out to a member of the team today.

The information and opinions contained in this blog are for information only.  They are not intended to constitute advice and should not be relied upon or considered as a replacement for advice.  Before acting on any information contained in this blog, please seek a solicitor’s advice from Gilson Gray.