Report comment

Parliament has legislated to make certain specific activities restricted to solicitors and barristers, e.g. the conduct of litigation, or advocacy in court without special permission granted only in exceptional circumstances. If masters wish to engage servants who are not solicitors or barristers, to help them litigate in person, and one of their servants claims for unpaid wages or fees, for work that wasn't the unlawful undertaking of one of the statutory restricted activities, then what possible authority has the judiciary as a whole to deny each and every such servant his remedy in contract, insofar as his duties, for which he has not been paid, involved assisting his master in court, as permitted by McKenzie v McKenzie?

If fresh legislation is needed to regulate a further and less-qualified, but less-expensive legal profession that has emerged in modern times, as a result of market forces, then it is for Parliament to enact that fresh legislation, not for the judiciary (by-and-large former solicitors and barristers) to cobble together rules, with the object of introducing restrictive practices that are more restrictive than the status quo presently imposed by statute law that has been debated in Parliament.