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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll