How void costs orders are used as a weapon to deny a disabled litigant in person access to justice. The circularity is complete: cannot challenge costs without paying costs, cannot pay costs without income, income destroyed by the forfeiture that the costs were supposed to adjudicate.
Three costs orders, each building on the last. Each void. Together they form a financial barrier designed to prevent a litigant in person from accessing justice.
The costs orders create a closed loop. At each step, the Claimant is trapped by the consequences of the previous step. There is no exit.
The costs trap extends beyond the civil courts into the welfare system. The connection establishes that enforcing void costs against a disabled person on benefits is not merely procedurally wrong. It is discriminatory.
The DWP's own assessment confirms the Claimant has limited capability for work and work-related activity. This is the highest tier of disability recognition in the benefits system. It proves inability to pay costs. It proves all prior sanctions for non-compliance were unlawful. DWP owes £9,300 in LCWRA arrears.
The Work Capability Assessment took 2 years. During those 2 years, the Claimant was treated as fit for work, sanctioned for non-compliance, and subjected to conditions he could not meet because of the disabilities the WCA eventually confirmed. The delay itself is a failure of reasonable adjustment.
Pre-action protocol letter sent to DWP. Deadline expired 5 March 2026 with no response. The DWP has not engaged. Judicial review proceedings are the next step (see JR-5).
The costs trap engages multiple provisions of the Equality Act 2010.
The Claimant's inability to pay costs arises from his disability (ADHD/ASD causing executive function impairment, inability to manage complex litigation without support, the commercial destruction caused by the defendants' actions which he could not prevent because of his disabilities). Enforcing those costs is unfavourable treatment arising from disability.
The court's practice of ordering costs against LiPs at interim hearings puts disabled LiPs at a particular disadvantage. The reasonable adjustment would be to consider the disability context before ordering costs, to consider ability to pay, and to consider whether costs orders will deny access to justice. None of this was done. 0/12 adjustment requests granted.
The court is a public authority. It must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity. No PSED analysis was conducted before any costs order. No consideration of the Claimant's disability in the costs context. The PSED is proactive. The court had knowledge (Kelly transcript para 50: 'I have ADHD and autism').
The costs trap is not a side issue. It is the mechanism by which the court prevents the Claimant from accessing justice.