Renewed application for permission to appeal against grant of summary judgment n favour of the defendant. He had sought to have set aside the respondent’s intervention in his solicitor’s practise. He said that he shuld have had legal assistance in resisting the intervention.
Held: Permission was refused. The solicitor was qualified to have argued his case, and though the Society might have done better to have provided the forensic evidence much earlier, that did not explain the claimant’s delay: ‘ The whole purpose of this ex parte procedure is to protect interests of creditors, and the reason for a need for a speedy challenge is to protect the interests of creditors and clients of the firm. But it is also to protect the solicitor’s own position because the longer the delay, and the longer the period for which assets are frozen, the more damaging it is to the standing and goodwill of the firm.’
Elias, Beatson LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 837
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pine v Law Society CA 25-Oct-2001
The applicant said the procedure under which he was struck from the roll of solicitors was unfair. There was no provision for legal advice or representation, and given the nature and severity of the allegations and consequences, the trial was . .
Cited – Holder v The Law Society Admn 26-Jul-2005
The applicant challenged the independence of the respondent’s disciplinary tribunal.
Held: The claim failed: ‘the nature of the Tribunal is entirely adequately independent and impartial for the purposes for which it is constituted. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions
Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.512387