Speaking for Themselves: Perceived Procedural Justice Among Self-Represented Litigants in Dutch Small Claims Procedures

This study examines how self-represented litigants perceive procedural justice and trust in Dutch small claims procedures. Using qualitative interviews conducted after real-life court hearings, we examined what respondents mentioned and considered relevant when talking about perceived procedural justice and trust in judges and the Dutch judiciary. Furthermore, because self-represented litigants have limited knowledge of the law and civil procedure, we were interested in whether they would mention issues of informational uncertainty spontaneously during their interviews. Findings show that components of perceived procedural justice are well interrelated and that respondents shared detailed accounts of voice and due consideration particularly. Respondents referred to procedural justice by their opponents often in terms of issues of respect, due consideration and neutrality. Notably, respondents shared accounts of informational uncertainty spontaneously during the interviews, particularly when asked about the accuracy of the judge and trust in the Dutch judiciary. This suggests that self-represented litigants may still have limited information to form procedural justice and trust perceptions, even after court hearings in small claims procedures. These findings highlight the importance of studying procedural justice and trust by means of qualitative studies, letting litigants speak for themselves.