Man employed during hearing allowed to represent company

A recent High Court decision in England has affirmed the court's pragmatic approach to company representation, allowing a company to be represented by an individual who was formally employed during an adjournment of the hearing. Mrs Justice Eady, in the case involving Justice Investments, ruled that the employment contract, entered into specifically to comply with Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 39.6, was not a sham. This decision underscores the judiciary's willingness to exercise its discretion to ensure the efficient administration of justice, particularly where the individual has a pre-existing, substantive involvement with the company, while upholding the fundamental principles governing rights of audience in court.

The landscape of legal representation for corporate entities in England and Wales is typically governed by stringent rules, primarily requiring representation by qualified legal professionals. However, a recent High Court ruling offers a notable illustration of judicial pragmatism in applying these rules, particularly concerning the representation of companies by their employees. The case, involving Justice Investments, saw Mrs Justice Eady permit an individual, Ian Andrews, to represent the company after he was formally employed during an adjournment of the hearing, specifically to meet the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

This decision, reported in July 2026, provides crucial insights into the court's interpretation of CPR 39.6, which allows for employee representation with judicial permission. It highlights the delicate balance courts must strike between adhering to procedural formalities designed to prevent the unauthorised practice of law and ensuring that justice is not impeded by overly rigid application of rules, especially when a party's ability to participate effectively in proceedings is at stake. The ruling serves as a reminder to practitioners of the importance of formalising representation and the court's inherent discretion in managing cases fairly and efficiently.

In English law, a company, as a separate legal entity, cannot represent itself in court in the same manner as an individual (known as appearing 'pro se' or in person). Historically, and generally, companies are required to be represented by a solicitor or barrister with a right of audience. This principle stems from the corporate personality doctrine and the need to regulate the conduct of litigation to ensure competence and adherence to professional standards.

However, the Civil Procedure Rules provide for certain exceptions to this general rule. Specifically, CPR 39.6 states that a company or other corporation may be represented at trial by an employee if two conditions are met: (a) the employee has been authorised by the company or corporation to appear on its behalf, and (b) the court gives permission. This rule acknowledges that employees often possess intimate knowledge of a company's affairs, which can be invaluable in litigation. The court's permission is a critical safeguard, allowing the judiciary to assess the suitability of the proposed representative and the circumstances of the case, ensuring that such representation does not undermine the fairness or efficiency of the proceedings.

The High Court case concerning Justice Investments, presided over by Mrs Justice Eady, presented a unique application of CPR 39.6. Ian Andrews had been representing Justice Investments at various hearings over a three-year period without objection. However, at the start of a recent hearing, Mrs Justice Eady raised the issue of his status, noting that despite being referred to as the claimant's assistant company secretary, Mr. Andrews was not, in fact, an employee.

To rectify this, an adjournment was granted, during which the claimant's sole director and shareholder entered into an immediate contract of employment with Mr. Andrews. The explicit purpose of this contract was for Mr. Andrews to act as an “authorised signatory of the company and assisting in its legal proceedings.” The central question for Mrs Justice Eady was whether this eleventh-hour employment constituted a legitimate arrangement under CPR 39.6 or an attempt to circumvent the rules on rights of audience.

Mrs Justice Eady concluded that the contract was not a sham. She reasoned that while the contract's purpose was indeed linked to the ongoing proceedings, this did not inherently invalidate its genuineness. She noted Mr. Andrews' extensive prior involvement in the claimant's business, distinguishing him from a qualified lawyer attempting to appear without proper jurisdiction. Furthermore, the judge considered the practical implications, acknowledging that refusing permission would necessitate postponing the hearing. Consequently, she granted permission for Mr. Andrews to represent Justice Investments for that specific hearing, explicitly stating that it was not a general permission for future proceedings. This decision highlights the court's discretionary power to balance formal compliance with the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost.

The High Court's decision in the Justice Investments case provides valuable guidance for legal practitioners and corporate clients alike. It reaffirms that while strict adherence to rules governing company representation is expected, courts retain a degree of flexibility to prevent procedural technicalities from hindering the substantive administration of justice. For companies, this case underscores the critical importance of ensuring that any individual representing them in court, other than a qualified legal professional, is formally and properly employed and authorised in accordance with CPR 39.6 well in advance of any hearing.

Practitioners should advise corporate clients to review their internal arrangements for litigation representation to ensure formal compliance. While the court demonstrated a pragmatic approach in this instance, relying on an ad hoc employment arrangement during an adjournment carries inherent risks and is unlikely to be viewed favourably in all circumstances. The ruling serves as a reminder that judicial discretion is exercised on a case-by-case basis, and the most prudent course of action remains to secure appropriate legal representation or ensure employee representatives meet all formal requirements from the outset of proceedings.