I suspect it didn’t go well
It is claimed that the matter was over “free speech”. I wonder if perhaps the claimant was suing someone for harassment and claimed a remedy of damages. It is possible to obtain an injunction on the small claims track (this is relevant for later on), per CPR 27.3 but it seems unlikely that the court would grant one for various reasons. I would expect any injunction application to probably be assigned to the fast track if it's fairly simple, or the multi-track if not.
If the matter did take place on the small claims track, it's likely that Hayden acted as a lay representative under the relevant Order. Obviously Hayden, to my knowledge, is not entitled to act on any other track (e.g. the fast track which is where I'd expect most injunction applications to go), despite as recently as February telling judges that Hayden is a former legal executive and, if I remember correctly, an LPC graduate. Good luck becoming a solicitor with those dishonesty convictions.
If the matter did not take place on the small claims track, it is difficult to see how the good “lawyer” could have represented someone. I suppose it is possible that the judge granted Hayden a right of audience, but I suspect that it's more likely the judge told Hayden off, like Hayden was told off in 2014 by the Circuit Judge in Devon, HHJ Cotter KC (as he then was, he's now a High Court Judge).
I also find it difficult to imagine anyone paying Hayden or paying expenses. Certainly the idea of charging someone for what you claim is potentially a £300 red-eye First-class railway ticket is hard to stomach. In any event, Hayden's legal advice simply isn't very good in my opinion. I personally believe Hayden actually cribs from recent students such as that young barrister friend of his, or professionals that have had the misfortune to be lured in by the plastic Scouse persona. But even then, Hayden isn't very good because in my experience, Hayden often gets the law badly wrong (see our published correspondence for an apt example of misunderstanding the law on privilege).
Perhaps Hayden is now a paid McKenzie Friend? The courts tend to take a dim view of those, mind.
I now wonder if Hayden will attempt to carry out regulated activities being “supervised” by his young new barrister friend once pupillage is completed. I suspect it's not as simple as that, mind, as newly qualified practising barristers are subject to supervision requirements themselves for the first three years, and it turns out there are strict requirements for being “exempt” from the usual requirements for a right of audience under the Legal Services Act 2007. It would appear to me to be a breach of the Core Duties if a barrister were to hire/employ someone who would not pass the “fit and proper person” test for, among other things, several convictions for dishonesty.
Anyway, enough sperging for now.
