Right of Attendance in Court

ElParque

I know this issue IS discussed in lots of threads but I'm trying to narrow down the meaning and possible use of questioning the RoA of the person who turns up in court next week at my hearing.

Am I right in thinking that if the person who turns up in court isn't

1) the named solicitor conducting the case
2) a solicitor who works as an employee or partner of the firm of solicitors involved in the case
3) an employee of the parking company, ie the claimant

then they would have no right of attendance unless they are

a) a barrister

and/or unless

1) the case is being held in private
2) they are being supervised on the day by one of those persons above, in person

Any clarification with this would be useful!

Cheers

Umkomaas

Getting the correct term might be best before you start questioning anything - or anyone!

Right of Audience.

Lamilad

Why have you started another thread? One topic - one thread!

Copy and paste your opening post into your existing thread so people can see the background to your case before advising.

Cordsandcag and Matthew87 threads have both disscussed RoA recently

ElParque

I thought it would be good to have a thread devoted solely to RoA rather than for users to have to pick up different bits of advice from various different ones and then piece the whole thing together.

It's a confusing subject for us amateur defendants.

Sorry if that's not the done thing.

DoaM

I agree with the OP ... this topic deserves its own thread. That way it could be easily linked to for providing relevant advice to others in future.

Loadsofchildren123

ElParque wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that if the person who turns up in court isn't

1) the named solicitor conducting the case
2) a solicitor who works as an employee or partner of the firm of solicitors involved in the case and is supervised by the more senior solicitor
3) an employee or directorof the parking company, ie the claimant

then they would have no right of attendance unless they are

a) a barrister no roa unless they are in a chambers.
Lots of barristers don't manage to get into a chambers (same as solicitors who don't get employed by a firm). They try to make a living/keep their hand in by hawking their services as an independent advocate - they are unregulated and have no RoA

and/or unless

1) the case is being held in private
2) they are being supervised on the day by one of those persons above, in person

Any clarification with this would be useful!

Cheers

See comments above. I agree it would be useful for this to have its own thread.

Many judges are not interested in the RoA argument. So whilst it's correct to raise it, the judge may dismiss it. Litigants in person shouldn't be phased by this but shouldn't be put off running the argument.

[Deleted User]

This may prove helpful (chapeau to @nearlylegal) Whilst it is drafted with advice particularly relating to housing law issues, the points regarding rights of audience are entirely relevant here. https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2017/01/solicitors-agents-yet-no-rights-audience/

In short, it's worth taking the point if the Claimant cannot be bothered to sort out proper representation of their case.

Lamilad

I think the other posters here make a fair point - I admit that OPs starting multiple threads about different aspects of the same topic is a 'pet peeve' of mine, but I'm persuaded to agree that this issue probably does deserve it's own thread, especially as it's quite topical at the moment.

Lamilad

On that note, here's what I posted on another thread earlier today.

Matthew87 wrote: »

Received a paper copy of BW Legal's WS and Exhibits in the post today.

It has a cover letter which says "Notice is hereby given pursuant to CPR 27.9 that our client will not be in attendance at the hearing, however, they will be represented by an advocate".

My understanding of CPR 27.9, is that if they've given 7 days notice (27.9(1)(a)) and has, in his written notice, requested the court to decide the claim in his absence (27.9(1)(c)), the court will take into account that party’s statement of case.

So... the notice was sent 7 days before our court date on Tuesday (even though I only received it today), but the notice doesn't say anything about the court deciding the claim in his absence.

So........ if the advocate has no RoA on Tuesday, the judge couldn't "take into account that party’s statement of case"??

You've understood 27.9.1.c quite well and you are right. They have not complied with it. This was a significant point in Cordsandcag's case on Wed. the judge accepted they'd complied with the part about writing with 7 days notice but not with sub-para 1.c. Which then meant he could strike out the claim under 27.9 (2) (a) and (b).

He can use his discretion to proceed with hearing as he did in this case but if the dfd had argued it more robustly I think he would have struck it out. It's definitely something you should bring to the judge's attention as a 'preliminary matter' Especially as they have not complied with 27.9 (1) (a) because the notice has to be 'served' on you (received by you) AT LEAST 7 days before the hearing.

Bear in mind that what we are discussing hear is non-attendance not RoA (separate issue).

Matthew87 wrote: »

So........ if the advocate has no RoA on Tuesday, the judge couldn't "take into account that party’s statement of case"?? ”

If it is held that the rep has no RoA then he is not allowed to speak during the hearing (as if he wasn't even there) The judge can either hear the claimant's case on papers or strike out the claim - either way you will win.

If it is held that the claimant has not attended under cpr 27.9 (1) (c) then the judge can either strike it out or proceed (using his case management powers). If this comes up you should definitely push the judge to strike citing that this is a professionally represented serial litigant with their own in house lawyers and unlimited access to legal advice from qualified legal professionals - it is inexcusable for them not to comply with the CPRs. Their failure to do so is an abuse of process and contempt of court.

Quentin

Lamilad wrote: »

I'm persuaded to agree that this issue probably does deserve it's own thread, especially as it's quite topical at the moment.

In that case maybe you would consider editing/deleting your harsh #3 which hardly helps??

Lamilad

Quentin wrote: »

In that case maybe you would consider editing/deleting your harsh #3 which hardly helps??

I'm not sure why you think it was harsh. It is generally a valid point but, as I've conceded - perhaps not applicable in this case.

I'll leave the comment in: a) for context, and, b) if the the "one topic - one thread" message is read by newbies visiting this thread then I think that helps them and the forum.