In the Matter of Applications for Orders in Relation to Costs in Intended Proceedings by Coffey and others [2013] IESC 11 (26 February 2013)

In the Matter of Applications for Orders in Relation to Costs in Intended Proceedings by Coffey and others [2013] IESC 11 (26 February 2013)

The Supreme Court held that only qualified solicitors or counsel, or parties themselves, have a right of audience before the courts, and that there is no legal basis in Irish, EU, or international law to permit a lay person such as Mr. Podger to act as advocate for the appellants. The application for lay representation was rejected as contrary to the public interest in the administration of justice and established legal principles.

Citation
[2013] IESC 11
Parties
Appellant: Stella Coffey; Appellant: No2GM Ltd.; Appellant: Derek Banim; Appellant: Thomas O’Connor; Appellant: Richard Auler; Appellant: Theresa Carter; Appellant: David Notley; Appellant: Michael Hickey; Appellant: Malcolm Noonan; Appellant: Gavin Lynch; Appellant: Danny Forde; Appellant: Enda Kiernan; Appellant: Dymphna Maher; Proposed Representative: Percy Podger
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Orders in Relation to Costs in Intended Proceedings (ex Parte Appeals) / Application for Right of Audience/representation Before Supreme Court
Outcome
application for lay representation dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Audience, Lay Representation, Mc Kenzie Friend, Costs Orders, Aarhus Convention, Judicial Review
Civil Procedure Legal Profession Environmental Law Right of Audience Lay Representation Mc Kenzie Friend Costs Orders Aarhus Convention +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stella Coffey

Appellant

No2GM Ltd.

Appellant

Derek Banim

Appellant

Thomas O’Connor

Appellant

Richard Auler

Appellant

Theresa Carter

Appellant

David Notley

Appellant

Michael Hickey

Appellant

Malcolm Noonan

Appellant

Gavin Lynch

Appellant

Danny Forde

Appellant

Enda Kiernan

Appellant

Dymphna Maher

Appellant

Percy Podger

Proposed Representative

Procedural Posture

Application for Orders in Relation to Costs in Intended Proceedings (ex Parte Appeals) / Application for Right of Audience/representation Before Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a lay person (Mr. Podger) can represent appellants as advocate before the Supreme Court in intended judicial review proceedings
  2. 2 Whether denial of such representation infringes rights under EU law or the Aarhus Convention
  3. 3 Whether a company can be represented by a non-lawyer member in court

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that only qualified solicitors or counsel, or parties themselves, have a right of audience before the courts, and that there is no legal basis in Irish, EU, or international law to permit a lay person such as Mr. Podger to act as advocate for the appellants. The application for lay representation was rejected as contrary to the public interest in the administration of justice and established legal principles.

Court Disposition

application for lay representation dismissed

Orders

  • Mr. Podger is not permitted to represent or address the court on behalf of the appellants.
  • Appellants may present their own cases if they wish, but no lay advocate is allowed.