The High Court rejected an application by Thomas Tougher and former solicitor Vincent T. O’Donoghue for Mr O’Donoghue to have an unrestricted right to represent Mr Tougher in court.
The application concerned a separate application by the first defendant, Tougher’s Oil Distributors Limited, to strike out Mr Tougher’s proceedings and vacate a lis pendens registered over property in the company’s name. The judgment does not decide that strike-out or lis pendens application; it addresses only who could represent Mr Tougher at that hearing.
Mr O’Donoghue sought full rights of representation, rather than permission to assist as a McKenzie friend. He submitted that Mr Tougher had a right to a fair hearing and to appoint him, and relied on general references to the European Convention on Human Rights, natural justice and an unnamed European directive. The defendants said they did not object to Mr O’Donoghue assisting as a McKenzie friend, but opposed him having a right to address the court.
Justice Cregan applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Coffey, which sets the general rule that parties may represent themselves, while solicitors and counsel may represent litigants when properly instructed. A McKenzie friend may assist a person representing themselves, for example by taking notes and quietly giving advice, but has no right to address the court unless invited by the judge.
The judge said Mr O’Donoghue was a former solicitor who was not currently in practice and was not subject to the professional conduct rules governing practising solicitors. He said there was no reason to doubt Mr O’Donoghue’s integrity, but found that the circumstances did not justify an exception to the general rule. Applying Coffey, he rejected the applications for Mr O’Donoghue to have an unrestricted right of audience.
The judgment records no decision on the underlying application to strike out the proceedings or vacate the lis pendens.