Apollo Engineering Ltd v James Scott Ltd (Scotland): SC 13 Jun 2013

After long running litigation between the parties, a shareholder and director of Apollo sought to represent the company in person. He was refused leave by the Court of Session, and now sought to appeal. The Court considered the possibility of an appeal given that he was not a party to the action.
Held: The appeal failed. Any such application must itself be supported by certificates from two counsel. The only question actually before the court was as to the propriety of the order refusing leave, and the Supreme Court should only intervene in such decisions where there was something seriously wrong. Whilst the rules disallowing such representation might deserve re-examination, the decision was within the rules.
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath
[2013] UKSC 37, 2014 SLT 32, 2013 SC (UKSC) 286, 2013 GWD 21-409, UKSC 2013/0038
Bailli Summary, Bailii, SC Summary, SC
Court of Session Act 1988 88, Court of Session Act 1988 88
Scotland
Citing:
See AlsoJames Scott Limited v Apollo Engineering Limited and others SCS 24-Jan-2000
. .
See AlsoApollo Engineering Ltd v James Scott Ltd SCS 7-Mar-2008
Outer House – Court of Session . .
CitedEquity and Law Life Assurance Society v Tritonia Ltd HL 1943
Viscount Simon LC said: ‘When an appeal is argued before the House of Lords, no one has any right of audience except counsel instructed on behalf of a party or (when the litigant is a natural person) the party himself. In the case of a corporation, . .
CitedAirey v Ireland ECHR 9-Oct-1979
Family law proceedings such as judicial separation do give rise to civil rights. In complex cases article 6 might require some provision for legal assistance, the precise form being a matter for the member state. The Court reiterated the importance . .
CitedJohn G McGregor (Contractors) Ltd v Grampian Regional Council HL 1991
The House dismissed the Council’s appeal as incompetent. An opinion of the court upon questions of law given on consideration of a case stated under provisions such as those in section 3 of the 1972 Act did not constitute a ‘judgment’ within the . .
At SCSApollo Engineering Ltd (In Liquidation) v James Scott Ltd SCS 18-Jan-2012
The parties had for several years been involved in litigation and arbitration. Apollo’s funds had run out and a director sought permission to represent the company before the court. He had asked the court to make an order under article 6 of the . .
CitedMarks and Spencer Plc v Interflora Inc and Another CA 20-Nov-2012
The court gave guidance on the use of surveys in trials for passing off and trade mark infringement.
Lewison LJ reviewed the practice of conducting interviews and surveys in passing off cases: ‘The upshot of this review is that courts have . .
Leave refusedApollo Engineering Ltd v James Scott Ltd SCS 27-Nov-2012
Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against order refusing permission for a shareholder and director of a party to represent the company.
Held: Leave was refused. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 February 2021; Ref: scu.510913