Bank of Baroda & Ors v GVK & Ors

Permission for a company representative to address the High Court is exceptional. The court must balance the need to do justice in the individual case against the public interest in preserving the integrity of the statutory rights-of-audience scheme.

Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 39.6, a company may be represented at trial by an employee only where the employee is authorised and the court gives permission. The inherent power to grant a special right of audience is exercised case by case. Relevant considerations include whether the proposed representative can assist the court and whether permission is necessary to do justice. A non-English-qualified lawyer who has no further evidence or papers and cannot address English law may properly be refused permission.

The claim was before the Commercial Court in proceedings involving claims exceeding US$2 billion. The defendants had previously been legally represented but had filed notice that they would act in person after parting company with their solicitors and counsel.

The immediate issue was whether Mr Nayar, who was not an employee of the defendants and was understood to be an Indian-qualified lawyer, should be permitted to make submissions on the defendants’ application to adjourn the trial. The court considered both representation under rule 39.6 and its inherent power to grant a special right of audience.

1. Rule 39.6. Rule 39.6 permits a company or other corporation to be represented at trial by an employee only if the employee is authorised by the company and the court gives permission. Mr Nayar was not an employee of the defendants and therefore did not fall within that rule (paras [6]-[8]).
2. Special right of audience. The court recognised an inherent discretionary power to grant a special right of audience in particular proceedings. The power must be exercised case by case. The court must balance the need to do justice in the individual case against the public interest in preserving the integrity of the statutory scheme regulating rights of audience (paras [11]-[12]).
3. In deciding whether permission is necessary, the court should consider whether the proposed representative would assist the court and whether refusal would cause an unjust disadvantage. The statutory scheme serves the public interest by ensuring appropriate training, professional approval, professionalism and integrity in advocates appearing before the court (paras [11]-[14]).
4. Permission was refused. Mr Nayar had no further evidence or papers, and the material facts and grounds were already before the court. As he was not qualified in English law, he could not assist on English legal questions or the authorities relied upon by the claimants. Any disadvantage to the defendants was limited and outweighed by the public interest in restricting rights of audience to persons authorised under the statutory scheme (paras [13]-[15]).