The High Court refused an application by barrister Eugenie Houston to come on record for two defendants in a land dispute without an instructing solicitor, ruling that the court rules did not allow a barrister alone to conduct contentious litigation for a client.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan delivered the judgment on 4 July 2017. The underlying proceedings were brought by two pension schemes, two individuals and Bulrush Horticulture Limited against William (otherwise Liam) Dunne and Mark Dunne. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering or interfering with lands known as Ballycommon Bog, Ballycommon, County Offaly, and a declaration that the plaintiffs own the lands.
The defendants had entered an appearance after the plenary summons was issued in May 2017. On 1 June, Mr Justice O’Connor made an interim order restraining them from trespassing on the land pending determination of the substantive issues. The case was due back before him on 11 July.
Houston, a practising barrister who was not a member of the Law Library, sought permission to file a notice of appointment and act directly for the defendants. She relied on the court’s inherent jurisdiction and provisions of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, including section 101, which had not yet commenced. She also said her professional indemnity insurance covered direct access work in contentious matters.
The plaintiffs opposed the application. Their counsel argued that the Rules of the Superior Courts did not authorise counsel to have carriage of proceedings, and did not set out how a barrister acting alone would meet procedural duties or comply with court orders. The Legal Services Regulatory Authority’s representative confirmed that Houston’s association was not a prescribed professional body under the 2015 Act. A representative of the Honorable Society of King’s Inns also told the court that the applicable Bar code prohibited barristers from acting in contentious litigation except on a solicitor’s instructions.
Justice Gilligan held that the rules permitted a party to conduct an action personally or through a solicitor, but not through counsel alone. He said the rules had the force of law and the court had to follow them. He also rejected the relevance of the Supreme Court decision cited by Houston and found no basis to issue a practice direction allowing the proposed arrangement.
The court denied the application. It did not decide the underlying ownership or trespass dispute. The judge said the defendants could represent themselves or retain a solicitor.