FPR PD 27A and Procedural Ambush – A Litigant in Person’s Perspective

Please note the names within this article have been changed. The FRJ has published this in the interest of debate and is not privy to the actual details of this case.

This article is not about abuse during the marriage, rather it is about a different kind of abuse: the kind hidden in court procedure, the kind that drained my finances, wrecked my health and which was overlooked by the court again and again. I write to show, from my own lived experience, how the habitual disregard of Family Procedure Rules 2010 (SI 2010/2955) PD 27A[[1]] (PD 27A) paves the way to procedural ambush, why this matters, and what must change in order to safeguard justice.

Ours was a modest matrimonial asset pot; the house, savings acquired and a small family business: he was the owner and I ran the admin side. That’s it, easy. I opted to represent myself. I made a sensible offer in writing and waited for him to appoint a solicitor. Meet ‘Cynthia Smith’. She was the principal – actually the only – solicitor at Smith Family Law, and as far as I can see, accountable to no one.

I was soon to discover that court procedure is routinely ignored, without fear of consequence and non-compliance with the rules was simply shrugged off. I was drawn into a battle of procedural ambush strategies including counsel’s note arriving an hour before the hearing, late costs schedules, ludicrous false claims, evidence disregarded, ex parte communications, withheld documents and lies[[2]] – as a litigant in person, I am genuinely unclear why in court proceedings we are supposed to avoid the word, because by legal definition, lies are exactly what they were.

Why does PD 27A matter so much?

PD 27A is not glamorous. It won’t decide who gets the house or how the pensions are carved up. PD 27A deals with something far more mundane: the paperwork. It exists to create some order out of the chaos of divorce: to ensure each party knows, in time, what evidence is before the court; to prevent judges being buried under mountains of paper; and to enable hearings to proceed fairly, efficiently and on as level a playing field as possible. For a litigant in person, already facing the inequality of arms, those safeguards matter. When the rules are ditched, the playing field tilts instantly.

Judges have consistently recognised the seriousness of the disregard for PD 27A amongst the legal profession. In T v T,[[3]] repeated late service of bundles and statements, altered documents and concealed applications were described as ‘particularly egregious’, especially against a litigant in person. In Re B (Litigants in Person: Timely Service of Documents),[[4]] the court emphasised that the 11 am deadline for service is a minimum safeguard, requiring strict compliance where one party is litigant in person. In Xanthopoulos v Rakshina,[[5]] Mostyn J condemned the ‘utter disregard’ of PD 27A as ‘forensic cheating’, warning that deliberate non-compliance may amount to professional misconduct.

Procedural ambush in practice

Ambush is a war-zone tactic – designed to disorient, overwhelm and defeat the target. I use the term ‘procedural ambush’ deliberately, because that is exactly what it was. Across nine consecutive hearings I faced the same pattern: submissions were always late, always containing another false claim and, more often than not, sent directly to the judge without my knowledge. The truth of the documents didn’t matter – only that they reached the judge first; false narratives, once lodged in a judge’s mind, are hard to dislodge.

Seizing the advantage

In the race to control the narrative, the applicant holds the cards. That is because he dictates the paperwork before the judge.

Form A is the application which triggers financial remedy proceedings and whoever files Form A wins the title applicant.

The first strike: the ES2

The next move came quickly. Having secured control of the bundle, Smith completed the ES2.[[6]] She may as well have plucked the figures out of thin air. My assets were exaggerated by a factor of six and his income depressed to a third.

The first appointment (FA)[[7]] hearing was brief. He and I were directed to respond to the respective questionnaires, and Smith was told to draft the orders.

Strike two: the penal notice application

I did as I ordered, he did not.

I wrote to Smith about the many deficiencies in his disclosure and further requested he comply. Her refusal to respond forced me to return to court to order compliance by penal notice. I made a stupid mistake, submitting form FC600 (contempt of court permission) when I should have used the D11. Thankfully for me, the court adviser noticed my error, returned the FC600 and I duly resubmitted with the correct form.

A penal notice hearing was listed and Smith prepared the bundle. This time, she denied me sight of it before filing, and I went into the hearing blind.

The judge opened by declaring the case ‘a mess’ – the FA orders were not sealed. I could not have known that; a litigant in person has no access to the court portal. Smith did, and she knew: I later saw it noted in her chronology.

The judge then objected to the two ‘almost identical submissions’ before him. I had no idea what he meant, only one was listed. I was forced to sit in silence while he tore a strip off me for the state of the case. I had been ambushed by Smith; she had – without reason to do so – included both the FC600 and the D11 in the bundle.

When permitted to speak, I explained to the judge that the FC600 had been returned ‘wrong form’, no fee had been paid, and it should not have been before him at all. His response to my protest, ‘It’s in the bundle’.

Both applications were dismissed: first, the judge determined that a penal notice could not be attached to the FA orders because ‘technically’ they ‘did not exist’, and secondly – relying on the bundle before him – he dismissed the FC600 and without a schedule, awarded costs against me, and even though it was not listed.

A month later, on provision of both my written clarification and evidence from Smith’s own notes the judge determined there had been a procedural irregularity, accepting the FC600 should not have been in the bundle (not having been listed) and set aside the costs order. I was still, however, without the disclosure ordered at the FA.

That hearing taught me a hard but vital lesson: the court bundle dictates the case – and the party who prepares the bundle has ultimate control over what the judge sees.

Strike three: the MPS hearing

I had asked Smith for cooperation with an interim maintenance figure. Her refusal to respond forced a contested maintenance pending suit (MPS)[[8]] hearing. What incentive did she have to collaborate while being paid to provoke a war?

Smith filed the MPS bundle late and, for the second time now, before I had seen it. My request to add to the bundle was met with obstruction: ‘Too late – I’ve already lodged it; you’ll have to prepare your own’.

This time counsel was instructed. I shall call him Peter Hardcastle. Late on the evening before the hearing, Hardcastle’s note landed, together with a hefty costs schedule.

This hearing’s ambush included a lengthy opposition to a legal services payment order (LSPO)[[9]] for which I had not applied, and a manipulated claim that I had refused to hand over documents, when in truth the refusal was theirs.

Smith and now Hardcastle had breached PD 27A. At the hearing’s outset, I raised the breaches and that I had been disadvantaged. I expected some remedy – perhaps even an adjournment. The judge simply shrugged: ‘We’re all busy’, she said, and I was told to carry on.

I referred her to my application – I had not requested an LSPO, Hardcastle’s objection was redundant and I requested his comments be withdrawn. The judge refused to address the falsehood, dismissing the LSPO as if I had applied for it anyway.

I persuaded the judge to award an MPS, albeit slightly lower than I had sought. However, she subsequently declared I’d ‘lost’ the case – and ordered me to pay their full costs, including those claimed to oppose the non-existent LSPO application.

Strike four: the FDR

I instructed a solicitor for the financial dispute resolution (FDR) hearing.[[10]] Hardcastle’s note arrived less than 2 hours before the hearing; I read it on my way to the court. Smith’s bundle and ES2 were so late that I didn’t see either before the hearing. Smith had not submitted any offer, despite the order to do so. The judge studied the ES2, declared the figures ‘too far apart’ and subsequently abandoned the hearing directing negotiations outside the courtroom. Hardcastle and Smith simply went home.

When I did eventually see the ES2 relied on by Hardcastle, my assets had this time been exaggerated almost tenfold, and – before the court – it was falsely claimed that I had hidden a small fortune; it was a ludicrous claim, but one which had guaranteed the FDR was derailed and the conflict prolonged.

During the FDR hearing, Hardcastle had hammered home that the ES2 figures ‘proved’ I was deceitful and that I needed scrutiny. Persuaded by his insistence, the judge ordered me to sift through 7 years of bank statements to prove my case. A fishing expedition – one that cost me hugely in time, money and health deterioration. I could not understand why I had been ordered to evidence every historical receipt and expenditure going back so many years, and yet at the same time my ex-husband’s ongoing refusal to comply with court orders had not been addressed at all.

Hardcastle’s expedition did not find him the fortune he’d misrepresented to the court; instead, he found proof of the accuracy of my Form E and the disclosure I had provided already, before the hearing.

The second penal notice application

At the FDR, Hardcastle had refused to agree orders to address my ex-husband’s continued non-compliance and we were forced to request a second penal notice hearing.

This time, Hardcastle’s note was so late that it had not reached the judge before he entered court. Hardcastle handed up a paper copy and, instead of the criticism his breach deserved, we were forced to wait – in the courtroom – while the judge read the late submission.

A penal notice was attached to the now sealed FA orders and my ex-husband was warned he could be sent to prison if he didn’t comply. He did not comply and he did not go to prison either. I sent a second schedule of deficiencies to Smith and – by now predictably – she ignored it.

The strategy had to be deliberate

This conduct could not be coincidence: at the MPS hearing I was ambushed with costs for an application I had never made; at the FDR my assets were exaggerated tenfold and I was branded dishonest; at one penal notice hearing the bundle was sabotaged, and the next the statement was served so late the judge had not seen it. To me, it has the appearance of a well-honed strategy; it had to be deliberate.

The final hearing was scheduled for 2 days. By then I was returned to the status of a litigant in person; my legal fees were mounting and spent almost entirely addressing their procedural ambush. I simply could not sustain the cost of the fees.

Despite no rule otherwise, Smith objected whenever I wrote directly to my ex-husband – even over something as mundane as asking him to cancel a subscription – insisting all communication must pass through her. And then, of course, she ignored every communication I sent. The absurdity was that the only meaningful progress came when I bypassed Smith and wrote to my ex-husband myself.

Three months before the scheduled final hearing, he and I had reached agreement on the house, proving he was at least willing to engage. That relief was marked, some progress was made, and we were within reach of a settlement. I wrote to Smith and urged her to engage. In keeping with her strategy, she ignored every attempt I made to reach an agreement and forced us to proceed to a contested hearing.

Smith was bound to know I would raise litigation conduct with the court; I had repeatedly raised it with her during correspondence. Her previous ES2 was riddled with errors and misrepresentation – already refuted with firm evidence and formally warned as potential misconduct.

The court’s directions

Smith was required by court order to file and serve the bundle 7 days before the final hearing. The Efficient Conduct Statement[[11]] makes clear an updated ES2 is required for the final hearing. She did not file the bundle and – I believe – never had any intention of complying with the order to do so. I had no idea which figures would be before the court and was forced to prepare a blindfolded case. Half an hour before the hearing, Smith handed my solicitor – reinstructed for the final hearing – a paper copy of the final ES2 which she had prepared. I saw it very briefly. She had removed the absurd ‘hidden assets’ claim – from the outset that claim had been unsustainable. No court bundle, the paper ES2 the only document provided by Smith.

I was pressured to accept a consent order due to ‘the complexity of the case’ and the tens of thousands in counsel fees it would likely cost to challenge their false claims and deficient disclosure. I confess to being so battle weary that I agreed to their demands.

After the hearing, I requested a copy of the final ES2. I was to find that Smith had not filed it, the paper copy had been mislaid, and the court had no record of it. As the author, Smith had the only copy. She refused to provide me with a copy and I was forced to return to the court for assistance.

In the subsequent hearing, I was ambushed again – this time, Smith denied having prepared the final ES2 and she denied handing it up to the judge. In fact, she denied that it existed at all. My protests that I had seen it were brushed aside. The judge simply accepted the denial and dismissed my application ‘totally without merit’. Smith left the courtroom having persuaded the judge that the ES2 prepared for the FDR was the only one which existed.

The same judge dismissed my requests that the court act on Smith’s PD 27A breaches. She told me procedural conduct ‘does not concern’ her and that my attempts to raise it were ‘wasting the court’s time’. In a chilling move, she then slapped me with Smith’s costs to oppose my application and threatened me with a civil restraint order[[12]] should I try to raise the matter again.

Smith’s courtroom denial meant that neither I nor the court were able to confirm which financial statements it had relied on to approve the consent order. The order was likely unsafe, and the court listed my application to set it aside.

The turning point

A further search of my solicitor’s clerical archives located the paper copy of the final ES2, though annotated with notes, it was readable. Smith had denied it existed, the find confirmed that it did.

Two overriding issues reared: did Smith prepare the ES2 and which version (FDR or final) of it was before the judge at the consent order hearing? I asked Smith to confirm; she refused.

So, I narrowed the purpose of the set aside hearing to determine the two issues. In the subsequent hearing – and confronted with the evidence before her – Smith admitted she had, in fact, prepared the ES2 and apologised for misleading the court.

This judge did take Smith’s conduct seriously. He was very clear with Smith that her failure to comply with both court’s directions and her PD 27A obligation was not acceptable. He ordered her to file the missing final hearing court bundle.

So, now, I finally have it.

It does not comply with requirements – I suspected it wouldn’t – and there are glaring disclosure omissions. However, I have a pending hearing to address those concerns.

My final thoughts

I have learned that the rules are fair.

What is not fair is the court’s failure to notice when the rules are disregarded. Even worse, the court’s indifference and refusal to act when those breaches are brought to its attention.

I am not legally trained and neither did I have any prior experience – one divorce battle is probably enough for most of us. It was never my intention to become proficient in financial remedy proceedings. I trusted the rules, I trusted the court, I trusted the professionals and I trusted the regulators. In my own experience, each of them has let me down. I have needed to study family law not out of ambition or choice, but as armour against the litigation ambush executed against me. The injustice I have been forced to fight almost broke me.

It is from a litigant in person’s perspective that I say that two straightforward reforms would have substantially curtailed the effectiveness of the procedural ambush strategy used against me.

First, litigants in person must be granted direct access to the court portal, ensuring parity of access to case documents and orders.

Secondly, as a matter of case management, procedural breaches must be addressed at the outset of every hearing – by adjournment, costs sanctions or other proportionate measures. With consistent enforcement of these safeguards, such ambush would swiftly lose its appeal.

[[1]]: PD 27A sets out the requirements for court bundles in family proceedings – including page limits, formatting, deadlines and service on the other party. Late or selective filing is a breach that undermines fairness.

[[2]]: In law, a ‘lie’ is not just a false statement. As set out in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720, it must be shown to be a deliberate untruth, told knowingly and intentionally, and not the result of mistake, confusion or poor memory.

[[3]]: T v T & Ors (Disregard for Procedural Rules, Adjournment) [2025] EWFC 14 (B) per Recorder Chandler KC.

[[4]]: Re B (Litigants in Person: Timely Service of Documents) [2016] EWHC 2365 (Fam) per Peter Jackson J (as he then was).

[[5]]: Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2022] EWFC 30 per Mostyn J.

[[6]]: The ES2 is the Schedule of Assets and Income. It provides a concise, tabular summary of each party’s assets, liabilities and income. The ES2 can significantly affect judicial perception at interim hearings.

[[7]]: The first appointment (FA) is the first hearing in financial remedy proceedings following the issue of Form A. Its purpose is case management: the court considers the parties’ disclosure, identifies issues and gives directions for further evidence (e.g. questionnaires, valuations).

[[8]]: Maintenance pending suit (MPS) is an interim spousal maintenance order to provide financial support during the proceedings.

[[9]]: A legal services payment order (LSPO) requires one party to fund the other’s legal costs.

[[10]]: The financial dispute resolution (FDR) hearing is a without-prejudice settlement hearing. Its purpose is to give the parties an opportunity, with judicial assistance, to negotiate a final settlement. The judge considers the parties’ offers and the evidence but cannot make binding findings of fact at this stage; if no agreement is reached, a different judge will preside over the final hearing.

[[11]]: Statement on the Efficient Conduct of Financial Remedy Hearings Allocated to a High Court Judge whether Sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice or Elsewhere, available at www.pumpcourtchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Statement_on_the_Efficient_Conduct_of_Financial_Remedy_Hearings.pdf

[[12]]: A limited civil restraint order (CRO) may be made under FPR 4.4 and PD 4B where a party has made two or more applications which are ‘totally without merit’. A limited CRO prevents that party from making further applications in the same proceedings without the court’s permission.