header-logo header-logo

15 October 2009
Issue: 7389 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Barrister—Pupillage—Exemption from pupillage

Doegar v The Bar Standards Board, [2009] EWHC 2231 (Admin),[2009] All ER (D) 70 (Oct)

Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court (London), Sullivan LJ, 31 Jul 2009

The starting point regarding the jurisdiction of the vistors’ jurisdiction under the Consolidated Regulations of the Court and the General Counsel of the Bar (the Regulations) was that it was an appellate one, and if the first instance hearing has been ineffective for procedural reasons, the appropriate course is usually to remit the matter.

The appellant appeared in person. Paul Parker for the respondent.
The appellant applied to be exempt from his pupillage requirements.

A panel of the Qualifications Committee of the Bar Standards Board decided to allow him a three-month reduction in each of the six months practising and non-practising parts of his pupillage.

On appeal the decision was upheld by the committee in a letter of March 2007. The appellant appealed. The committee accepted that there had been procedural unfairness to the appellant, and that the decision should be set aside.

The remaining questions were:

(i) whether his application

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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll