My small caveat is that the hearing itself is likely to be the very model of fairness and balance in its conduct by the judge. The judiciary are painfully aware that LIPs are extremely vulnerable and often go to elaborate lengths to protect them from tactical tricks by their opponents.

Lips are often a damned nuisance and clog up the courts with all sorts of weird and asinine litigation. But not always. In a case such as this where the stakes are high, the issues real and the disparity of legal resources great then procedural fairness in the High Court is not likely to be a big issue.

That said the LIP does indeed “have a fool for a client” in Mills case of course she has little option. I dont have much time for her myself – but were I a family barrister I’d like to think I’d step in to assist only to prevent the carnage all too likely to occur.