Report comment

This decision seems to throw up more problems the more one considers it. In particular a cursory glance at Schedule 2 paras 3 and 4 seem to conflict. Does the exercise of a 'right of audience' under para 3 constitute the 'prosecution' of a claim for the purposes of para 4? Does this mean that any non-solicitor employee appearing on behalf of their firm on the simplest of interim applications is in contempt of court? The flood of satellite litigation that a case where the Appellant ultimately failed in her attempt to have the claim struck out as an abuse of process beggars belief.