uk-supreme-court
Barring legal fees — why does one lone junior barrister (for each party) appear, in a minority of some UK Supreme Court cases?
<p>In most UKSC cases, at least 1 QC and 1 junior barrister appear for each party to the case. Often, multiple QC's and multiple juniors appear. But I have stumbled on exceptions like</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/47.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Mathieson v SSWP</em>  [2015] UKSC 47</a>, where Respondent was represented by merely a junior barrister. But <a href="https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/people/tim-buley-qc/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">he, Tim Buley,</a> became QC in 2019.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2021/15.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Her Majesty's Attorney General v Crosland</em> [2021] UKSC 15 (10 May 2021)</a>, where each litigant is represented by merely a junior barrister. <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/82658/barring-legal-fees-why-does-one-lone-junior-barrister-for-each-party-appear#comment180070_82658">Nate Eldredge sussed out that the Applicant's barrister became QC in 2022</a>.</li>
<li><strong>Just edit this post, if you know of other such UKSC cases.</strong></li>
</ul>
<p><em><strong>Rule out legal costs and fees as a reason.</strong></em> Obviously, SSWP and Her Majesty’s Attorney General are wealthy enough to instruct QC's.</p>
<p>And these cases can't simply be easier! If a case were straightforward, it would never have been litigated or appealed up to the UKSC, or been permitted by the UKSC to appeal!</p>

<p>I think the answer is that, despite the wording in the question, this case is simply easier. Note that the Attorney General is listed as the applicant, rather than the appellant.</p>
<p>The case is a straightforward action for contempt of court but since the court in question is the Supreme Court, it heard the case itself (although with a different set of judges).</p>
