Szwed v Aviva Insurance Ltd: High Court dismisses litigant in person's bid to reinstate struck-out appeals

Pawel Szwed, who has been pursuing a personal injury claim in the Central London County Court since January 2021, sought damages arising from a road traffic accident on 30 January 2018 in which he was knocked from his bicycle when a van door was opened into his path. Liability was admitted. The striking disparity between the parties' valuations of the claim has been a feature of proceedings throughout: the Appellant's final schedule of loss sought £960,504.75, while the Respondent's counter-schedule placed the figure at no more than £919.22 for past losses, with nothing for future losses.

The two appeals concerned orders made by Recorder Glancy KC on 28 July 2023 and HHJ Hellman on 22 December 2023, both relating to the joint expert process and costs budgeting. Both appeals were automatically struck out on 17 April 2025 after Szwed failed to comply with an unless order made by Sir Stephen Stewart on 26 March 2025, which required him to file a witness statement demonstrating the continuing relevance of the appeals given the progress of the underlying proceedings.

Ritchie J declined in March 2026 to extend time for compliance in appeal KA-2023-000166, confirming that appeal's strike out. Szwed then applied to set aside Ritchie J's order and, by agreement with the Respondent, that application was treated as relating to the strike out of both appeals.

Mrs Justice Hill, hearing the application afresh, applied the well-established three-stage framework from Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, as directed by R (Hysaj) v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 1633 and Lakatamia v Su [2019] EWCA Civ 1626.

At the first stage, Hill J found the breach serious and significant. The appeals had a protracted history, the Appellant had already been afforded considerable latitude, and Sir Stephen Stewart's unless order had itself been a further opportunity to address something he had previously failed to do when directed by Martin Spencer J.

At the second stage, the court was unpersuaded by the explanation offered. Szwed attributed the default to the theft of his mobile telephone, but provided no corroborating evidence such as a police report. The court noted that even taking his account at face value, he appeared to have regained access to his email on 14 April 2025, leaving time to comply before the 17 April deadline. The volume of documentation the Appellant had filed throughout the proceedings also sat uneasily with his account of the practical difficulties he faced.

The third stage proved equally unfavourable. Hill J found the appeal against the Recorder's unless order entirely academic: it had been superseded within the County Court proceedings when HHJ Hellman granted relief from sanctions in December 2023, and the joint expert process had since been completed. The costs budget appeals were also substantially academic, given that the Appellant had the benefit of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting, and any residual costs arguments could be raised when costs fell to be assessed.

On the merits, applying the Hysaj principle that merits become relevant where grounds are either very strong or very weak, Hill J concluded that both appeals were "very weak". The Recorder's unless order reflected a legitimate assessment of contested factual accounts; his costs budget decision was a routine case management exercise attracting a high threshold on appeal; and the Judge's refusal to reduce the Respondent's costs budget, on grounds the Appellant characterised as "oppressive" conduct, was equally unassailable, not least because the power to make such an order was itself doubtful.

The application was dismissed. The trial, which had already been listed five times, is due to commence on 29 June 2026.

The Appellant appeared in person. Christopher Walker (instructed by Clyde & Co) appeared for the Respondent.