Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court has refused an application in an action for possession of property for the plaintiff to be directly represented by a barrister and no solicitor. The court noted that the proposed barrister was subject to the Kings Inns Code of Conduct adopted in 2018, which provided that barristers should not take instructions from clients directly in contentious matter. The established legal framework which mandates that only solicitors, as officers of the court, may have carriage of proceedings. The court also highlighted the lack of professional indemnity insurance coverage for the barrister for services typically provided by solicitors, as well as the absence of a supervisory jurisdiction over barristers comparable to that over solicitors, which is crucial for the proper administration of justice and protection of litigants.
direct representation, barrister, solicitor, High Court, Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC), professional indemnity insurance, carriage of proceedings, supervisory jurisdiction, legal services, Union law, Code of Conduct, King's Inns, Law Society of Ireland, Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, contentious matters, amici curiae, effective legal protection, Treaty on European Union (TEU), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR), Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), public interest.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now