LEHRAM CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED v SOUTHWARK CROWN COURT

This judicial review concerns the Claimant company's challenge to Southwark Crown Court's dismissal of its appeal and several interlocutory applications made in the Administrative Court case management hearing. The Court considered whether Ms Maria Sokolova should be permitted to represent the company under CPR r 39.6, whether enforcement of the Crown Court order should be stayed, whether the Interested Party should pay permission-stage costs, and whether disclosure should be ordered against the Crown Court or the Interested Party. The judge applied the principle that company representation by an employee under CPR r 39.6 is ordinarily permitted unless there is a particular and sufficient reason to refuse; however, permission was refused in this case because the proposed representative had repeatedly failed to comply with court orders, filed a disproportionate and largely irrelevant volume of material, made personal attacks on opposing advisers, and demonstrated lack of competence to assist the Court. The judge also refused a stay of enforcement for want of irreparable harm, declined to make an interim costs order, and found no disclosure to give by the Crown Court and no necessity to order disclosure from the Interested Party at this stage.

This is a first-instance judicial review application by Lehram Capital Investments Limited challenging the Crown Court decision dismissing its appeal (convictions and fines for offences under the Fraud Act and the Companies Act 2006). The Claimant sought, among other reliefs, (i) permission for Ms Maria Sokolova to address the Court on the company's behalf, (ii) a stay of enforcement of the Crown Court penalties, (iii) a costs order against the Interested Party in respect of the permission stage, and (iv) disclosure orders against Southwark Crown Court and the Interested Party.

The Court identified five issues for determination: (1) whether Ms Sokolova should be permitted to represent the company in future hearings under CPR r 39.6; (2) whether to stay enforcement; (3) whether to order permission-stage costs against the Interested Party; (4) whether to order disclosure from the Defendant Crown Court; and (5) whether to order disclosure from the Interested Party.

The judge noted Linden J's earlier directions requiring clarification of Ms Sokolova's status and qualifications and found that the documentary material filed by or on behalf of the Claimant was excessive, disorganised and in breach of court directions. Applying the usual presumption in favour of allowing an employee to represent a company under CPR r 39.6 unless there is a particular and sufficient reason to refuse (and considering authorities on the application of the rules to litigants in person), the judge exercised his discretion to refuse permission because Ms Sokolova had repeatedly failed to comply with orders, filed disproportionate and irrelevant material, demonstrated an inability to focus on the substantive issues, made personal attacks on opposing counsel, and was unlikely to assist the Court at a substantive hearing.

On the stay application, the judge refused a stay of enforcement, noting earlier refusals by Griffiths J and Linden J and that the Interested Party had explained the procedural steps which make imminent and irreversible harm unlikely. The judge declined to make any interim costs order, observing that costs issues are to be dealt with at the conclusion of the proceedings and that applications for wasted costs would require separate, properly framed applications. On disclosure, the Crown Court confirmed there was no written order of the kind Linden J had requested and so had nothing to disclose; disclosure by the Interested Party was not ordered at this stage but the Interested Party was reminded of its ongoing duties. The Interested Party was directed to draw up an order reflecting the judgment.

The judge also permitted limited participation by Ms Sokolova at the case management hearing by remote means as a pragmatic measure, but made clear she may not take further part unless the company identifies an appropriate representative and follows the court's rules on applications for remote attendance.

This is a first-instance judicial review case. The Court refused the Claimant's application to permit Ms Maria Sokolova to represent the company under CPR r 39.6 and ordered that she may take no further part in the proceedings; the Court declined to order a stay of enforcement; it refused to make any interim costs order in favour of the Claimant; and it made no disclosure order against Southwark Crown Court and declined to require disclosure by the Interested Party at this stage. The refusals were justified by failure to comply with court directions, disproportionate and irrelevant filings, and lack of suitability to represent the company.

The judgment records prior procedural steps: permission to apply for judicial review was previously considered by Linden J who made directions on 4 May 2022 requiring clarification of Ms Sokolova's status; earlier applications for a stay of enforcement were refused by Griffiths J (November 2021) and by Linden J (May 2022). No appellate neutral citations are given for those decisions in the judgment.