The Society had intervened in the applicant’s legal practice. He complained that the intervention was disproportionate, and by removing his right to enjoyment of his possession, infringed his human rights. The Society appealed the finding that an infringement had occurred.
Held: The jurisdiction granted by the Act was a draconian jurisdiction. That was necessary for the protection of the public. The judge was wrong to consider that an intervention raised any such Human Rights issue. Nor was there any alternative procedure available to the Society by was of a receivership. The legislator was allowed a margin of appreciation in establishing a scheme of supervision. The procedure was necessary and struck a fair balance
Carnwath, LJ, Sir Christopher Staughton
Times 29-Jan-2003, Gazette 20-Mar-2003,  EWCA Civ 39,  1 WLR 1059
England and Wales
Cited – Giles v The Law Society CA 20-Oct-1995
A notice of the Law Society’s suspicion of dishonesty founding an intervention in a solicitor’s practice, did not need to particularise the acts suspected. Sedley LJ said: ‘it is by common consent a matter for the court’s judgment [on an application . .
Appeal from – Holder v Law Society ChD 25-Jul-2002
The applicant solicitors’ practice had been subject to an intervention by the respondent. He claimed that by intervening in his practice, his human right to enjoy his possessions without interference had been infringed.
Held: The power of . .
Cited – Buckley v Law Society (No 2) ChD 1984
A court deciding a case about a solicitor under paragraph 6(5) of schedule 1 should come to its conclusion in the light of all the evidence existing at the time the matter came to be decided and not at the time of the relevant intervention. When . .
Cited – Dooley v The Law Society (No 1) ChD 15-Sep-2000
When considering an application for the Law Society to be ordered to withdraw an intevention in a solicitor’s practice, the court undertakes a two stage process: ‘First it must decide whether the grounds under paragraph 1 are made out; in this case, . .
Cited – Sritharan v Law Society CA 27-Apr-2005
The Law Society had intervened in the applicant’s legal practice as a solicitor, and his practising certificate had been automatically suspended. He applied to the court to remove the suspension.
Held: The powers exercised were statutory. The . .
Cited – Simms and others v The Law Society CA 12-Jul-2005
The appellant challenged intervention proceedings brought against his solicitors practice by the respondent. Following disciplinary proceedings, the Society had obtained summary judgment rejecting the application, and awarding costs. The solicitor . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Human Rights
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.178783