Is the TAL wagging the dog? Temporary Advocate’s Licences (TAL’s) in the news

Whilst perhaps not the most flattering application an advocate is ever instructed to make, a TAL (Temporary Advocate’s Licence) application is not a rare beast.

In 2025, some 8 civil TAL’s were granted, out of 19 licences in total (Isle of Man Courts & Tribunals Service, Annual Report 2025, p. 23).

In civil proceedings in the Isle of Man, rights of audience are governed by s 36 Administration of Justice Act 1981.

A TAL can be applied for under s 17(2)(b) Advocates Act 1995 on any of the following grounds:

s 17(2)(b)(i): “no advocate… is available for such proceedings”

s 17(2)(b)(ii): “… an advocate is available but could not act without a conflict of interest occurring”

s 17(2)(b)(iii): “the proceedings require knowledge and experience of a nature not ordinarily available in the Island”

s17(2)(b)(v): “the proceedings are likely to be so lengthy that they would impose unreasonable demands on the time and resources of… an advocate”

s 17(2)(b)(v): “such circumstances exist as are specified in regulations made under this Part”.

Some TAL applications opt to combine the above grounds. A recent TAL application in an insolvency case – TAL – Daniel Bayfield KC (CHP 26/0057) (01.07.26) – relied solely on Ground (iii) (ie. required knowledge and experience not ordinarily available on the Island). The application failed.

At §§ 2-3, the First Deemster set out the basis for the application:

“2. It is alleged that the Claimants are owed approximately US$958 [m] by the Defendant… [T]he Defendant is “cashflow insolvent”. The Claimants consider that, in light of disagreements between its three shareholders…, control of the Defendant should be placed in the hands of independent insolvency officeholders so as to enable a restructuring… . [T]he Claimants seek the appointment of provisional liquidators who will be able to “pursue a holistic restructuring of the company’s debts”.

3. … the Defendant and two of the three shareholders will oppose the claim, one of the principal grounds of opposition being that no such order has previously been made in the Isle of Man and that the Isle of Man High Court has no power to make such an order. In the event that such an order is made, questions will arise as to the extent of the provisional liquidators’ powers and the controls which the Court should impose…”.

He then set out (from § 7) key elements of his reasoning in refusing the TAL:

“7. … it does of course remain for the Claimants to satisfy me that the statutory ground relied upon is satisfied, the burden resting on them. Merely because no objection is raised this does not entail an automatic grant of a TAL…

9. I had cause to consider these principles in a decision dated 17 July 2023 concerning trust litigation… I quote from paragraph 11…

“(1) The outcome of each TAL application depends upon its facts and circumstances.

(2) … Judge of Appeal Tattersall had this to say in… DP Donnelly (20th January 2003):-

“… [s] 17(2)(b)(iii) was enacted to strike a balance between the understandable desire that some litigants may wish to be represented by foreign Counsel and the fact that local advocates could properly represent such litigants…”.

(3) So far as cases… concerning the law of trusts are concerned, I quote from my decision dated 19 February 2020 concerning an application… for a TAL in favour of Robert Ham QC:-

“9. … this type of claim falls squarely within the type of case which is the bread and butter of several experienced trust practitioners and litigators in this jurisdiction. I am wholly unconvinced that the Manx Bar lacks the knowledge and experience required to conduct this type of case to a suitably high standard…”.
10. Furthermore, English and Manx Trust law are not identical and there is no particular reason why a very experienced member of the English Chancery Bar should have any particular expertise in Manx trust law, as opposed to an experienced member of the Manx Bar.” 

(5) [sic] Merely because a great deal of money is at issue is an insufficient basis upon which a TAL may properly be granted…

(6) Deemster Doyle’s decision in Origo Partners (26 March 2015) contains these pertinent observations:-

“In Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited (decision 15 May 2014) I stated:

“… 24. … the Island’s independent Manx Bar… have built up an impressive degree of specialisation in trust, corporate and insolvency matters…

26. I do not doubt Mr Le Poidevin’s knowledge, experience or expertise. The test is not however whether he has more knowledge, experience or expertise than Manx advocates… The test is whether the proceedings require knowledge and experience of a nature not ordinarily available in the Island. In my judgment they do not. Knowledgeable and experienced advocates on the Island are well placed to consider any “unique” points of Manx law in respect of the trust, corporate or insolvency issues which may arise…
27. I do not attach any great weight to the fact that Mr Le Poidevin may already be “familiar with the complex factual background to this case”… The Judge of Appeal has made it crystal clear (see for example Watterson 24 June 2004 at paragraph 32) that the fact that English counsel may have been instructed at an early stage, and others may have to re-do work which has already been done, should be ignored…*
30. Some of the issues raised in these proceedings may be “unique” and/or “complex” and/or “arguably novel”, but experienced and knowledgeable Manx advocates deal with unique and/or complex and/or arguably novel points in respect of trust, corporate and insolvency matters on a regular basis…”.

13. In any event, I confess to finding it difficult to accept that the issue of whether the Manx High Court has the power to make the type of order sought by the Claimants is… particularly novel or difficult… I myself made such an order in the case of 2E2 (IOM) Ltd (CHP13/0014) on 30 January 2013...

18. … [T]his TAL application must be refused… [T]he particular legal issue upon which this application is focussed is unlikely to be… particularly difficult or novel… Novelty by itself is in any event not… relevant… If I am wrong, and in the event that it emerges that difficult or novel issues do arise, I consider that this is an area of law where there is more than adequate knowledge and experience present in the Manx Bar as a whole so that the issues can be fully and properly researched and presented to the court by way of skeleton arguments and oral advocacy. Manx advocates with the necessary experience are likely to be in a better position to argue such issues than counsel from a different jurisdiction… [T]he fact that apparently very large sums of money are at stake is not determinative… [T]he Claimants have failed to discharge the burden which rests upon them to satisfy the strict requirements of [s] 17(2)(b)(iii)”.

[* This specific point, citing authority including from 2004, is arguably more debatable today, given caselaw on avoiding duplication of costs and on the overriding objective.]

Other TAL applications relying in part, or otherwise, on Ground (iii) have gone either way.

Examples of successful TAL applications relying on Ground (iii) include: Metro Baltic Horizons plc & another v James & others (ORD 2012/61) (31.07.15) (Deemster Doyle at § 25: “the allegations of fraud (deceit, conspiracy and dishonest assistance) which will have to be skilfully dealt with by the advocate making them in accordance with his demanding duties to the court. I have concluded… that the knowledge and experience necessary to exercise that particular skill is not yet ordinarily available on the Isle of Man in a case such as this”) (whether the same outcome would apply today is also debatable); and TAL – Sam Grodzinski KC & Hartley James Foster (2DS 2024/1) (22.01.24) (Deemster Corlett at § 3: “appeals from the VAT Tribunal are rare”).

An example of an unsuccessful TAL application relying on Ground (iii) was: TAL – Joshua Munro (ORD 18/0013) (15.08.22) (Deemster Corlett at § 15: “While… I agree that there are certain preliminary points… as to the meaning and effect of certain provisions of the contract of employment, I do not consider them to be particularly complex or difficult. Any issue concerning the validity of a restraint of trade or non-solicitation clause will need to be looked at in the context of the Isle of Man’s fiduciary and corporate regulated sectors”).

Note for practitioners: Notwithstanding the clear statutory criteria on TAL’s, some off-Island clients still wish to explore representation by off-Island Counsel, sometimes when they are already  instructed in related proceedings. However – when this ground is relied upon – the Isle of Man Court will continue to apply the “strict” statutory test as to whether the required knowledge and experience is ordinarily available on the Island.

[Update 17.08.26: this decision has been upheld on appeal.]

Disclaimer: professional advice should be sought before applying any information in a given case.

For advice on Isle of Man civil procedure, or on litigation relating to Isle of Man insolvency, contact Coren Law.

See also Coren Law’s Isle of Man civil procedure portal: Click On | Coren Law.

Image credit: Esma Melike Sezer