header-logo header-logo

Coming soon? Adverse inferences

14 July 2017 / ​Alexandra Felix KC , Tom Orpin-Massey
Issue: 7754 / Categories: Features , Regulatory
printer mail-detail
nlj_7754_felix

The criminal & civil courts can draw ‘adverse inferences’. Alexandra Felix & Tom Orpin-Massey ask might more regulatory & disciplinary panels do the same?

  • Could regulatory and disciplinary panels be allowed to draw ‘adverse inferences’ from a professional’s non-cooperation?
  • Why and how ‘adverse inferences’ could be introduced.

It is said that with the many advantages of membership of a profession comes the obligation for the registrant to engage with the regulator where concerns have arisen. What, though, when a registrant refuses to engage in the investigatory process and/or does not attend and/or chooses not to give evidence at a regulatory or disciplinary hearing?

This topic has generated significant interest, not least in the High Court, where several judges have commented on the peculiar arrangement whereby the majority of regulators do not recognise the adverse inferences familiar to the criminal and civil courts. For some time now, practitioners in the disciplinary and regulatory fields have wondered whether adverse inferences are on the horizon.

Before 1994 in the criminal courts there was considered

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll