Solicitor—Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal—Duty to give reasons

Shaw and another v Logue [2014] EWHC 5 (Admin)

Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, Jay J, 13 January 2014

The standard of reasoning required from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was the same as that set out in South Bucks DC v Porter [2004] 1 WLR 1953; r 16(5) of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2007 requires no more and no less.

Timothy Dutton QC and Craig Ulyatt (instructed by Mayer Brown International LLP) for the applicant. John Wardell QC and Andrew Mold (instructed by RadcliffesLeBrasseur) for the respondent.

The two appellants (the solicitors) were both former solicitors. They acted for clients in proceedings in the Chancery Division against the respondents. The respondents succeeded in the litigation, and then complained to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) about the solicitors. They adduced evidence obtained in related litigation in the US. The SDT found misconduct proved and struck off the solicitors. The solicitors appealed under s 49 of the Solicitors Disciplinary Act 1974.

The grounds of appeal

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

Solicitor—Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal—Duty to give reasons

Shaw and another v Logue [2014] EWHC 5 (Admin)

Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, Jay J, 13 January 2014

The grounds of appeal

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Partner and Manchester office lead appointed head of family

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

DWF insurance services director appointed to Civil Justice Council

R3—Jodie Wildridge

Kings Chambers barrister appointed chair of R3 Yorkshire

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Renters’ Rights revolution begins—brace for tribunal chaos

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

NLJ this week: Civil procedure gets a spring overhaul

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation

NLJ this week: Why GP complaints are going nowhere

Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group

NLJ this week: Prenups meet a jurisdictional brick wall

A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision

NLJ this week: Has Rylands v Fletcher come back from the dead?

An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading

Error message

Solicitor—Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal—Duty to give reasons

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

R3—Jodie Wildridge