Accessibility links

Kerry Talbot

Is an unqualified person allowed to act on behalf of parties to litigation?

20 July 2010
By: Kerry Talbot | Discussion topic: Banking & Finance, Banking & Finance Litigation, Banking & Finance Litigation, Mortgage Repossession, Upload-Finance

In a recent case in which I was involved, the proposed representative had acted as advocate on behalf of the claimants on a number of previous applications both in a prior set of proceedings in connection with the lender’s claim for possession (in which the claimants were the defendants) and in the current proceedings. It was not clear whether legal aid would be available or if the claimants were in a position to act for themselves, so that if the representative could not act on their behalf, there was a risk that the claimants would be prevented from pursuing their claims.

 The judge refused permission for the representative to act as advocate taking into account that:

  •  the representative had “sailed very close to the wind” as regards conducting litigation on behalf of the claimants in the past without the necessary permission, contrary to the Legal Services Act 2007.  There was some concern as to whether the representative was charging for his services although the judge was prepared to proceed on the basis that he was not charging in this case;
  • the claim was based on unparticularised but serious allegations including conspiracy to defraud, and the representative appeared to be encouraging the claimants to make these allegations when there was reason to doubt that he had given adequate thought to the proper basis (if any) for making these allegations.  The defendants had a legitimate interest to be protected by the safeguards that the law regarded as proper in such cases;
  • there was conflict of interest between the claimants; and
  • there had been many applications over a relatively short period with claimants losing application after application.  The lender had added their costs to the security so far.  These applications suggested that the representative did not have the necessary judgment and experience to decide which applications should be made and when, and how they should be best presented.

Following this case and in the light of the increase in the number of litigants in person, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Family Division has now published helpful guidance on this issue:

 http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/pub_media/mckenzie-friends-practice-guidance-july-2010.pdf

 

Francis & Ors v Barton Bridging Capital Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 152

No Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Contribute your thoughts