Clark Advertising v. Scottish Enterprise Dunbartonshire [2004] ScotSC 41 (09 June 2004)

Clark Advertising v. Scottish Enterprise Dunbartonshire [2004] ScotSC 41 (09 June 2004)

The established rule that artificial legal entities must be represented by qualified legal professionals is proportionate, legitimate, and does not infringe Article 6 ECHR. The sheriff was correct to require the pursuer firm to obtain legal representation and to sist the cause for that purpose.

Citation
[2004] ScotSC 41
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Clark Advertising Ltd; Defender and Respondent: Scottish Enterprise Dunbartonshire
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (appeal) / Appeal Against Sheriff's Interlocutor on Representation
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to; cross-appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Rights of Audience, Legal Representation of Artificial Persons, Party Litigant Rules, European Convention on Human Rights Article 6
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Rights of Audience Legal Representation of Artificial Persons Party Litigant Rules European Convention on Human Rights Article 6

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clark Advertising Ltd

Pursuer and Appellant

Scottish Enterprise Dunbartonshire

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (appeal) / Appeal Against Sheriff's Interlocutor on Representation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a business partnership (firm) can be represented in court by one of its partners as a party litigant
  2. 2 Whether denial of such representation infringes Article 6 ECHR (right of access to court)
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff erred in requiring legal representation for the firm

Ratio Decidendi

The established rule that artificial legal entities must be represented by qualified legal professionals is proportionate, legitimate, and does not infringe Article 6 ECHR. The sheriff was correct to require the pursuer firm to obtain legal representation and to sist the cause for that purpose.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to; cross-appeal refused.

Orders

  • Pursuer and appellant found liable to defenders and respondents in expenses occasioned by the appeal (excluding cross-appeal expenses); account of expenses remitted to auditor of court to tax and report; cause remitted to sheriff to proceed as accords.