The case applies the established Damjanovic v Maley framework for leave for unqualified persons to appear, confirming that the detrimental effect of a lay advocate's conduct on the party's interests and the tendency to advance specious arguments weigh against granting leave. It also applies the A v C [No 2] framework for extending time to comply with springing orders, confirming that the absence of any reasonably arguable case on the merits and the failure to place a compliant document before the court weigh heavily against extension.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.