The recent case of Veluppillai v Veluppillai held that a litigant in person’s conduct was so ‘abysmal’ that he lost his right to anonymity, was given an extended civil restraint order for two years and was ordered to pay nearly £150,000 in costs to his wife.
The case dealt with the wife seeking to sell one of the properties in order to pay off the mortgage on another property to fund the set-up of a beautician business and was spread over thirty hearings including four appeals. The excessive amount of hearings being put down to what the Judge described as the husband’s, a litigant in person’s, extreme litigation misconduct
The area widely reported in the media relates to the fact that Mr Veluppillai assaulted his ex-wife and her counsel at a court hearing, whilst threatening to execute her, her lawyers and the Judge. Following these actions, Mr Veluppillai was committed to prison for contempt.
Leading from this Mr Velippillai skipped his sentencing hearing, fled abroad and sent a barrage of abusive emails to the Court. He later claimed that he had a fatal illness and demanded that proceedings be adjourned indefinitely.
At the final hearing, Mr Justice Mostyn found that the wife’s proposal for the division of assets should be adopted as it was ’eminently reasonable and fair’ and that upon the transfer of the two properties to her there would be a clean break. Further to this, it was unusually held that the husband should pay the wife’s costs and that his actions were so extreme that it was in the public interest to expose his conduct.
This case goes some way to highlight the need for legal representation to advise and professionally act both in negotiations and court hearings.