header-logo header-logo

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

Coming soon? Adverse inferences

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

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

19 promotions across national offices, including two new partners

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Partner promoted to head of corporate team

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Chester office expansion accelerates with triple appointment

NEWS
As AI chatbots increasingly provide legal and commercial advice, English law is beginning to confront who should bear responsibility when automated systems get things wrong
Businesses are facing a ‘dramatic rise in prosecution risks’ as sweeping reforms to corporate criminal liability come into force, expanding the net of who can be held responsible for wrongdoing inside organisations
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has reignited debate over what exactly counts as the ‘conduct of litigation’ in modern legal practice
A controversial High Court financial remedies ruling has reignited debate over secrecy, non-disclosure and fairness in divorce proceedings involving hidden wealth
Britain’s deferred prosecution agreement regime is undergoing a significant shift, with prosecutors placing renewed emphasis on corporate cooperation, reform and early self-reporting
back-to-top-scroll