Lonergan v Gedling Borough Council

[2009] EWCA Civ 696

Case details

Case citations
[2009] EWCA Civ 696
Court
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Judgment date
9 June 2009
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Civil procedure Rights of audience Legal representation
Keywords
rights of audience High Court rights of audience solicitor advocate Court of Appeal pro bono assistance application made in advance
Outcome
application refused (application adjourned)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

A solicitor without High Court rights of audience cannot require the Court of Appeal to confer those rights at the hearing of an appeal. Any application concerning representation should be made in advance, including any request for pro bono assistance or clarification of status. A telephone call to the judge’s clerk is inadequate. Where the representative’s own failure has created the difficulty, the court may refuse permission despite the possible need to adjourn or postpone the appeal.

Factual background

The appellant appealed from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, before Mr Justice Lewinson. At the hearing, Mr Blakey sought permission to appear for the appellant. He was an admitted solicitor but did not have High Court rights of audience. Although he had submitted an extensive written argument, he had not previously applied for pro bono assistance or made an application to clarify his status before the appeal was called on. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal should confer rights of audience in those circumstances.

Held

  1. Application for rights of audience. Sir Andrew Morritt refused to confer rights of audience on Mr Blakey. He was an admitted solicitor but lacked the relevant High Court rights of audience.
  2. The court considered that Mr Blakey had placed it in the position of deciding between conferring rights he did not possess and allowing the appeal to be adjourned or proceed only in part. That difficulty was created by his own failure to make the necessary application in advance.
  3. A telephone call to the judge’s clerk did not amount to an adequate application to clarify the solicitor’s status before the appeal was properly called on. Nor had he made a specific application for assistance from the Bar Council Pro Bono Unit operated with the Chancery Bar Association.
  4. In those circumstances, there was no justification for granting rights of audience which Mr Blakey did not otherwise have. Lord Justice Keene and Lord Justice Elias agreed with the judgment.
  5. The order recorded that the application was adjourned and that the application for rights of audience was refused.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On appeal from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, before Mr Justice Lewinson. The application for rights of audience was refused.

Lower court decision

Judgment appealed:
Not stated in the judgment
Outcome:
application refused (application adjourned)

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.