0370 270 6000

Avinue Limited v Sunrule Limited, Court of Appeal, 26 November 2003

1 December 2003
The issues

Small Claims – Company – Corporate Litigant – Lay Representative – Rights of Audience.

The facts

The Defendant Company was involved in litigation in the Central London County Court. An issue arose over the representation of the Company. The Judge on Appeal from the District Judge held that the individual who had advised the Director was neither Officer nor employee of the Defendant Company and therefore would not be entitled to act as a lay representative.

The Defendant appealed.

The decision

1. The Trial involving a corporate body would require representations to be made either by an office or employee of the company.

2. However, the requirements of Part 39.6 did not apply to Small Claims Track actions. The meaning of “lay representative” was wide and it was clear from the Practice Direction that a lay representative was entitled to represent a corporate party in small claims proceedings, even if he was not an officer or employee with the company.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up