Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Rights of Audience
MAZUR MATTERS 64: THE COURT REJECTS WOULD BE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT THAT A CLAIMANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HAD NO RIGHT OF AUDIENCE

MAZUR MATTERS 64: THE COURT REJECTS WOULD BE APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT THAT A CLAIMANT’S REPRESENTATIVE HAD NO RIGHT OF AUDIENCE

July 10, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Setting aside judgment

The Court considered a “Mazur” type argument in this application for permission to appeal. The appellant arguing that the claimant had never been lawfully represented at previous hearings. This argument did not get very far.  The judge indicated that, even…

SHOULD THE COURT ALLOW A "NEWLY APPOINTED" EMPLOYEE TO REPRESENT A LIMITED COMPANY AT A HEARING?

SHOULD THE COURT ALLOW A “NEWLY APPOINTED” EMPLOYEE TO REPRESENT A LIMITED COMPANY AT A HEARING?

June 26, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

CPR 39.6 permits a company to be represented by an employee where the employee is authorised by the company and the court gives permission. We have here a case where the proposed representative only became an employee part-way through the…

MAZUR(ISH) MATTERS 59: UNQUALIFIED PERSON NOT ALLOWED TO REPRESENT PARKING COMPANY AT A SMALL CLAIMS HEARING

MAZUR(ISH) MATTERS 59: UNQUALIFIED PERSON NOT ALLOWED TO REPRESENT PARKING COMPANY AT A SMALL CLAIMS HEARING

April 7, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

I am grateful to Ritchie Young for sending me a copy of this judgment in which the District Judge refused to allow an unauthorised person a right of audience in a small claims track case.  It is not technically part…

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"

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”

January 9, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized

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…

RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE AND HEARINGS IN "CHAMBERS": BAR COUNCIL GUIDANCE

RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE AND HEARINGS IN “CHAMBERS”: BAR COUNCIL GUIDANCE

August 2, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I am grateful to Charles Bagot QC for referring me to the Bar Council publication “Acting as a Solicitor’s Agent”. This has a different view to those set out in earlier posts. It would be prudent for those involved in…

RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE:  A COMMENT FROM AN ELDERLY COSTS NERD

RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE: A COMMENT FROM AN ELDERLY COSTS NERD

July 19, 2019 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Applications, Members Content

Yesterday I wrote on rights of audience.  This led to a great deal of comment on Twitter and a response from an  elderly costs nerd (who wishes to remain anonymous) has commented on this case: “Your post today about the…

RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE: WHAT IS MEANT BY CHAMBERS? CLAIMANT'S REPRESENTATIVE SENT HOME...

RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE: WHAT IS MEANT BY CHAMBERS? CLAIMANT’S REPRESENTATIVE SENT HOME…

July 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I am grateful to barrister Christopher Buckingham for sending me a copy of the judgment in National Westminster Bank -v- Smith. (27th February 2019). A copy of which is attached here E6BA4N32 – National Westminster Bank PLC v Smith (27.02.19)…

SOLICITOR'S AGENT HAS NO RIGHT OF AUDIENCE AT STAGE 3 HEARING: COUNTY COURT DECISION CONSIDERED

September 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, RTA Protocol, Uncategorized

Who has a right of audience at a Stage 3 hearing? This issue has been considered in the county court and I am grateful to barrister Jonathan Dingle for sending me a copy of the decision of District Judge Peake…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION AN 8 POINT SURVIVAL GUIDE (AUGUST 2019): AND LOOK AT THE LINKS…
  • EXPERT WATCH 66: RED FLAGS AND EXPERTS (1) :THE DUTY TO CONSIDER THE RANGE OF OPINIONS: OFTEN “HONOURED IN THE BREACH”; OFTEN FATAL TO A PARTY’S CASE
  • EXPERT WATCH 65 : WHEN THE JUDGES SAY “WE ATTACH VERY LITTLE WEIGHT” TO A REPORT IT IS CLEAR THAT SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG
  • ANOTHER INTERESTING DISCUSSION (ABOUT INTEREST…): THE STARTING POINT IS THAT THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR BEING OUT OF ITS MONEY (NO MATTER WHAT IT WOULD HAVE DONE WITH IT…)
  • WHEN A COURT MAY MAKE NO ORDER FOR COSTS: THE FACTORS CONSIDERED: 12 KEY POINTS AND A USEFUL CHECKLIST FOR PRACTITIONERS

Top Posts

COST BITES 435: £4 MILLION SPENT IN COSTS AND NEITHER PARTY WILL RECOVER A PENNY FROM THE OTHER: A "PYRHHIC" VICTORY LEADS TO NO ORDER FOR COSTS...
COST BITES 436: THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO BEAT THE CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFER: WAS IT UNJUST FOR THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY? THE IMPORTANCE OF INTEREST
A WIDOW CANNOT BRING AN ACTION UNDER THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT WHERE HER HUSBAND SETTLED THE PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A CONCURRENT TORTFEASOR IN HIS LIFETIME
WHEN A COURT MAY MAKE NO ORDER FOR COSTS: THE FACTORS CONSIDERED: 12 KEY POINTS AND A USEFUL CHECKLIST FOR PRACTITIONERS
COST BITES 437: SHOULD THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT OF THE ACTION LEAD TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING AWARDED? YES IT SHOULD...

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.