The Court of Appeal held that a self-represented litigant was not positively shown to lack legal capacity to conduct proceedings, notwithstanding paranoid ideation and self-described cognitive difficulties, where the litigant demonstrated ability to understand procedural requirements, make rational litigation decisions, and comprehend consequences of the proceedings. The Court refused leave to appeal from summary dismissal of a District Court claim on the basis that there was no practical utility in granting leave, since the applicant conceded the statement of claim was deficient and a strike-out order with consequential costs would stand regardless. The Court also confirmed that where a person is self-represented, the level of capacity required is commonly somewhat greater than that required to instruct a lawyer, but the test remains whether the person can understand, evaluate and make decisions about the issues and consequences of the litigation, not whether they can represent themselves well.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.