header-logo header-logo

Procedure

27 June 2013
Issue: 7566 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Apollo Engineering Ltd v James Scott Ltd (Scotland) [2013] UKSC 37, [2013] All ER (D) 116 (Jun)

There may be grounds for thinking that the rule which disables a company from being represented other than by counsel or a solicitor with a right of audience needs to be re-examined. The rule about representation does not apply to proceedings before an arbiter, as has now been made clear by rule 33 in Sch 1 to the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 which provides that a party may be represented by a lawyer or any other person: see also rule 41 which enables a party to apply for issues of Scots law arising in an arbitration to be determined in the Outer House. Rules 33 and 41 are, it must be emphasised, default rules. They apply only in so far as the parties have not agreed to modify or disapply them. But the fact that they are there suggests that the rule about representation ought not to be applied in cases where they do apply in a way that disables a

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Tech companies will be legally required to prevent material that encourages or assists serious self-harm appearing on their platforms, under Online Safety Act 2023 regulations due to come into force in the autumn
Commercial leasehold, the defence of insanity and ‘consent’ in the criminal law are among the next tranche of projects for the Law Commission
County court cases are speeding up, with the median time from claim to hearing 62 weeks for fast, intermediate and multi-track claims—5.4 weeks faster than last year
The Bar has a culture of ‘impunity’ and ‘collusive bystanding’ in which making a complaint is deemed career-ending due to a ‘cohort of untouchables’ at the top, Baroness Harriet Harman KC has found

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has secured £1.1m in its first use of an Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO)

back-to-top-scroll