Grizonic v Suttor

HIS HONOUR : Although I am conscious of the caution which has been urged in many authorities as to granting leave to an unqualified person to appear on behalf of a litigant, the question must ultimately be determined on the facts of each case. Given the history of the matter and the difficulties which have beset bringing it to hearing to this point, I am not prepared to entertain the suggestion on behalf of Mr Grizonic that the proceedings be adjourned to see whether the Guardianship Board might, sometime in July, appoint a tutor. There is no application before me for the appointment of a tutor advanced on either side, and no evidence to suggest that Mr Grizonic is so incapable of managing his own affairs as to warrant that course.

In those circumstances, it seems to me that – proceeding on the basis that the matter will be heard, at least in part, on Thursday – Mr Grizonic will not have legal representation, and if I refuse leave for Ms Wade to appear, that is not going to result in him having legal representation on Thursday. Thus the alternatives are (unqualified) representation by Ms Wade, or no representation at all.

There is some medical material referred to in my judgment of 2 May 2008, that suggests that Mr Grizonic would have some difficulty in conducting the case on his own, and there is some basis for supposing that Ms Wade may have a little experience in litigation which will, in some small measure, facilitate the presentation of his case.

Mr Grizonic wishes Ms Wade to appear on his behalf. No disadvantage from that course has been identified. It is true that Ms Wade will not be constrained by the professional obligations which apply to lawyers, but, of course, the Court will expect her to behave appropriately, and if she does not, leave can always be withdrawn; I am not suggesting for a moment that that contingency is a likely one.

I grant leave to Ms Wade to appear for Mr Grizonic at the hearing on 3 July 2008.