Sunrule Ltd v Avinue Ltd

Sunrule Ltd v Avinue Ltd

The refusal to allow Sunrule Limited to be represented by a lay representative (Mr Boyd) at the small claims hearing was a breach of Practice Direction 27, resulting in procedural unfairness. The Practice Direction permits lay representation for companies in small claims track proceedings, and the trial was not fair given the circumstances.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Sunrule Limited; Defendant/respondent: Avinue Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Lay Representation, Small Claims Track, Rights of Audience, Corporate Parties, Fair Trial
Civil Procedure Lay Representation Small Claims Track Rights of Audience Corporate Parties Fair Trial

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunrule Limited

Claimant/appellant

Avinue Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a company may be represented by a lay representative who is not an officer or employee in small claims track proceedings
  2. 2 Whether refusal to allow lay representation resulted in an unfair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to allow Sunrule Limited to be represented by a lay representative (Mr Boyd) at the small claims hearing was a breach of Practice Direction 27, resulting in procedural unfairness. The Practice Direction permits lay representation for companies in small claims track proceedings, and the trial was not fair given the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal allowed