PI Brief Update

Driving a coach and horses: District Judge reins in unqualified advocates - Michael Brooks Reid, Temple Garden Chambers

21/01/26.Michael Brooks Reid discusses the decision of District Judge Pratt (“the Judge”) in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Langley [2026] EWCC 1, which will be undoubtedly ruffling feathers at HQ of the well-known advocacy agencies.

The case was a routine small claims trial over an unpaid parking charge. The only individual in Court who appeared for the Claimant was Mr Boaten, a “Solicitor’s Agent” (which, as the Judge noted, is a misleading non-legislative term). In a familiar arrangement, the Claimant had instructed solicitors who were on record, who in turn contracted Elms Legal Advocates Ltd (“Elms”), who are not solicitors of record, and who in turn subcontracted Mr Boaten on a one-off basis.

A challenge was made to Mr Boaten’s right of audience.

The Law

The Court examined three possible routes through which a non-qualified person may lawfully exercise a right of audience, ultimately finding that Mr Boaten qualified for none.

The most significant analysis (and the focus of this article) was in respect of the statutory provisions of the Legal Services Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”) which create and define an “Exempt Person”, an unqualified individual who has a right of audience.

The statutory test is set out at Schedule 3, Paragraph 1(7) of the 2007 Act. It requires the following four conditions to be met:
(1) the individual must be assisting in the conduct of litigation (“Condition 1”);
(2) the individual must be supervised by an authorised litigator in the proceedings (“Condition 2”);
(3) the relevant hearing must be taking place “in chambers” (“Condition 3”);; and
(4) the relevant hearing must not be reserved family proceedings (“Condition 4”).

The Decision

Whilst the Judge found that Conditions 3 and 4 were satisfied, the Claimant’s case failed on...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/BrianAJackson

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...