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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll