MAZUR MATTERS 46: A “CLAIMANT’S REPRESENTATIVE” HAD NO RIGHT OF AUDIENCE IN THIS SMALL CLAIMS TRIAL: “IT IS TO DISTORT THE PURPOSE OF SCH 3, PARA 7 BEYOND RECOGNITION THAT THE TRADITIONAL ROLE OF AN INHOUSE MANAGING CLERK UNDERTAKING THE ROUTINE WORK OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE BE EXTENDED INTO A WHOLESALE UNQUALIFIED ADVOCACY SCHEME”
This is the first time I have seen Mazur mentioned and considered in an issue as to rights of audience. In this case the judge held that the representative sent by the claimant to attend a small claims trial did…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 46: THE DEFENDANT HAD AGREED THAT THE DEFENCE AS DRAFTED BROKE THE RULES
We are looking at a case where we get a hint of a defence that was so defective that, ultimately, the defendant agreed it should be struck out and entirely repleaded. It provides an object lesson on how a defence…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: 10 POINTS TO IMPROVE THE ODDS: LOOKING BACK TO JANUARY 2016
This blog celebrates its 13th birthday later this year. Civil Litigation Brief started as a series in the Solicitors Journal 35 years ago. Needless to say it has a large “back catalogue”. I wanted a regular opportunity to bring important…
You must be logged in to post a comment.