Baker: Would not have granted rights, all other things being equal
The High Court has given a struck-off solicitor rights of audience to represent companies of which he was only a director for that purpose.
Mr Justice Andrew Baker said he decided to allow Paul Simms to speak for the claimants at the hearing because of the need to resolve the matter.
Mr Simms was struck off in 2004 for conduct unbefitting a solicitor, including dishonesty. Appeals to the High Court and Court of Appeal failed.
The claim is brought by two charitable companies that own and manage a mosque in Essex against 22 people accused of damaging the mosque.
The claimants were seeking to appeal a recorder’s decision to strike out the claim against some of the defendants because of their failure to comply with an unless order.
The judge said there was nothing in the papers to suggest that Mr Simms appreciated the need to apply for rights of audience.
There had been previous hearings in the county court and possibly the High Court where this “seems to have been treated as something of a formality” – even though granting a right of audience was “supposed to be exceptional”.
Baker J said that, other things being equal, “I would have been minded to say that the claimants have not begun to demonstrate to my satisfaction” that there was a good reason for them not to be represented on the appeal by qualified lawyers.
Even if there were good reason for this, he continued, he would not have been persuaded to grant Mr Simms permission to act as advocate on their behalf.
This was not just because of “the important public interest in the proper administration of justice that underpin the need generally for parties to be represented by duly qualified professionals”.
It was also because Mr Simms acknowledged he was only a director so the claimants had “somebody in effect act for them as legal advisor and conductor of this litigation, the very thing from which Mr Simms was struck off as having any lawfully authorised permission to be”.
But Baker J decided that “in the very particular circumstances of this case… the greater injustice in this case would be the injustice done” to all those involved if the matter were not resolved that day.
Those circumstances included the way “Mr Simms has said that he has been caused, not unreasonably, to misunderstand that it was likely he would be granted a special right of audience somewhat on the nod or as a formality”.
The judge added that “so far as I can see Mr Simms’s actual conduct of this litigation has not given rise to any specific concerns as to the honesty and propriety of his approach to the matter or the way he has dealt with the court”.
Thus, by “a relatively fine margin”, he granted Mr Simms permission to appear at the hearing.
But Baker J stressed that this “should not be taken as any decision as to, or guidance in respect of, the representation of the claimants hereafter in the continuation of these proceedings”.
The judge ultimately rejected the appeal as put by Mr Simms.
Leave a Comment