Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,175
Patrick McCann SC, for the Minister, said it appeared Scotchstone, while suffering an unrealised loss of €200,000, still had funds in securities of some €100,000 and it could hire lawyers if it “cut its cloth to suit its measure”. The law here clearly provided a company must be represented by a lawyer and cannot be represented by a managing director, shareholder or other officer of the company, he submitted.
Mr Justice Feeney said he was bound by a Supreme Court decision of 1968 (the Battle case) which found a limited company could not be represented in court proceedings by an officer of that company. The claim of inability-to- pay-lawyers did not constitute a rare and exceptional circumstance allowing Mr Skoczylas to represent the company, he added.
this is crazy and needs to be changed, even if it requires a referendum.
Companies are separate legal persons.
That's the nub of the issue.
Non-lawyers do not have any right of audience in our courts, ie make representations/pleadings on behalf of another to a court. That is the job of a lawyer.
Makes a lot of sense.
Companies are separate legal persons.
That's the nub of the issue.
Non-lawyers do not have any right of audience in our courts, ie make representations/pleadings on behalf of another to a court. That is the job of a lawyer.
Makes a lot of sense.
The courts do allows litigants in person all the time. They don't like but they must allow it. A LIP enjoys the same rights of audience as a lawyer.
Their capacity may be similar to agency, but on what basis do you say it is actually agency?...
People need to isolate the concept that officers of a company file tax returns, sign contracts etc but they do so as authorised agents only....
It would fall on deaf ears.
The company is a legal person separate from its shareholders, directors, servants and agents.
it is a point that is so strong that I don't think there is any valid counter argument to be made against it.
For all other purposes (which include matters of legal import, such as contracts to purchase real property, or the filing of tax returns) the officers of the company act for the company with full legal capacity. It isn't really consistent to rule that for some purposes the officers are the company and for other purposes they are not.
One said
Here is a valid counter argument...
I have to say that I cannot think of a valid argument why a company is obliged to use a lawyer in court other than the enrichment of the legal profession.
For all other purposes (which include matters of legal import, such as contracts to purchase real property, or the filing of tax returns) the officers of the company act for the company with full legal capacity. It isn't really consistent to rule that for some purposes the officers are the company and for other purposes they are not.
I might as well be flogging a dead horse here with some people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?