Counsel who wished to insert an allegation of fraudulent activity, or similar, into an application to amend a notice of appeal, must be sure not only that they have the clear and direct instructions of the clients to do this, but also that they found available material to justify the allegation in a format in which it could be produced to court in evidence. Where such material was unavailable because the client declined to waive confidence, counsel was at risk of a wasted costs order. Counsel are immune from defamation for such matters, and accordingly must behave responsibly.
Citations:
Times 02-Jan-2001, Gazette 01-Feb-2001
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Medcalf v Mardell and Others CA 24-Nov-2000
Counsel who wished to insert an allegation of fraudulent activity, or similar, into an application to amend a notice of appeal, must be sure not only that they have the clear and direct instructions of the clients to do this, but also that they . .
See Also – Medcalf v Mardell and others CA 2-Mar-2000
. .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Medcalf v Mardell, Weatherill and Another HL 27-Jun-2002
The appellants were barristers against whom wasted costs orders had been made. They appealed. They had made allegations of fraud in pleadings, but without being able to provide evidence to support the allegation. This was itself a breach of the Bar . .
See Also – Medcalf v Mardell and Others CA 24-Nov-2000
Counsel who wished to insert an allegation of fraudulent activity, or similar, into an application to amend a notice of appeal, must be sure not only that they have the clear and direct instructions of the clients to do this, but also that they . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Costs
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.135662