“Prima facie co-Plaintiffs. whether in one original action or in an action consisting of consolidated actions, must be jointly represented by solicitor and counsel.”
“(1) it was not regular and not proper practice that two firms of solicitors should be placed on the record as representing Mr Lewis and the company separately;
(2) it might have been argued in that case that the defendants had acquiesced in the position and waived any rights they might have had to object;
(3) the court itself had an interest in having actions properly constituted and the situation in that case was irregular;
(4) he was not saying that it was impossible ever in any case to have separate representation, wholly or partially, in a consolidated action;
(5) the case of Healey v A Waddington & Sons Ltd  1 WLR 688,  1 All ER 861n showed the possibility of partial separate representation in consolidated actions;
(6) in the case before the court, separate representation would be extremely inconvenient and awkward and many difficult problems would arise; the possible problems referred to related to opening speeches, cross-examination, the asking of leading questions and final speeches;
(7) the action was not properly constituted where the plaintiffs were represented by separate solicitors;
(8) he did not encourage an application to be made for complete or partial separate representation as he did not see how it could work in that case.”
“When persons undertake the prosecution of a suit, they must make up their minds whether they will become co-plaintiffs: for if they do, they must act together. I cannot allow one of several plaintiffs to act separately from and inconsistently with the others (emphasis added).”
“There is a strong argument that the Claimants’ conduct in the Main Action, in having separate representation by solicitors, was irregular. Although Jane and the children were not joint claimants in that they were not pursuing a cause of action vested in them jointly, they were co-claimants and the approach in Lewis appears to apply to such claimants. The question of the regularity of what they did does not seem to me to be affected by considering whether they could have brought separate proceedings which, without formal consolidation, could have been the subject of an order that the two proceedings could have been heard together. That did not happen as Jane and the children were co-claimants in the Main Action. Nor is the question as to regularity affected by the fact that as well as the Main Action, there was a direction for the trial of the Trust Issue where it is less easy to describe Jane and the children as co-claimants.
However, on the assumption that the conduct of Jane and the children in this respect was irregular, any such irregularity was waived by the Defendant, in so far as it was a matter for the Defendant alone, rather than for the court. The Defendant knew all the material facts as to what is now said to be an irregularity and made no objection of any kind.
As to the separate interest of the court, referred to by Pearson LJ in Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd (No. 2), the conduct of the Claimants in instructing two firms of solicitors did not impact in any way on the conduct of the trial or otherwise on the conduct of the proceedings. The only potential impact of that conduct is in relation to the present point as to costs. That is a point which now needs to be decided on its merits and it would not have arisen if Jane and the children had instructed a single firm of solicitors.”
“The Claimants submitted that it was appropriate for Jane and the children to have separate representation. They referred to the procedural history and to the origin of the dispute in the Defendant’s application in relation to Jane’s IVA and the joinder of the children to that application. It was then accepted that the interests of Jane and the children were aligned in relation to the dispute about the trust. It was said, however, that their interests might later diverge if they were to be competing creditors of Madam Lim’s estate.
…I do not consider that it was reasonably necessary, after a certain point in this litigation, to have separate representation for Jane and the children. I can see that the interests of Jane and the children were not identical in the early stages of the Defendant’s application in relation to the IVA. However, on 20 July 2015, I ruled that while I would make orders for costs in relation to the Trust Issue and the Main Action, I would not otherwise deal with the costs of the litigation about the IVA, on the basis that the issues in that litigation have not been decided. The court ordered the trial of the Trust Issue on 30 October 2012. Jane and the children served a single Points of Claim in relation to the Trust Issue on 20 November 2012. Up to the point of service of that pleading, I can see that Jane and the children could justify the taking of separate legal advice but, from that point, I consider that separate representation was not reasonably necessary. As they themselves admit, their interests were aligned. There was in practice no conflict of interest as regards the arguments in relation to the Trust Issue and, later, the Main Action. That should have been clear upon service of the Points of Claim in relation to the Trust Issue. Accordingly, I conclude that the assessment of costs in this case should reflect the fact that separate representation was not justified as reasonably necessary from immediately after 20 November 2012.”