Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Legal Professions - From: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 63 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Davies v Davies [2000] 1 FLR 39
2000
CA
Sir Stephen Brown P, Robert Johnson J
Legal Professions, Costs
The wife had objected to the instruction by her former husband of a solicitor who had been instructed by her some seven years previously. She withdrew her objection, but the court now considered an appeal as regards costs. Held: The court considered the possible subconscious influence on a lawyer having acted before for a party.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Halewood International Ltd v Addleshaw Booth and Co [2000] 1 PNLR 298
2000

Neuberger J
Legal Professions
The court recognised the public interest in clients being able to retain the solicitors of their choice, and they should only be prevented from doing so on solid grounds.
1 Citers


 
Re T v A, (children, risk of disclosure) [2000] 1 FLR 859
2000


Legal Professions

1 Citers


 
Bristol and West Building Society v Baden Barnes and Groves [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 788
2000
CA

Limitation, Land, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence
cw Proposed amendments to a plaintiff's pleadings failed to prevent a striking out. The amendments either sought to advance by a different route the earlier claim which was bound to fail, or sought to introduce a new cause of action which was statute barred and did not derive from the same, or substantially the same, facts.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Omar's Trustees v Omar (2000) BCC 434
2000
ChD
Jacob J
Litigation Practice, Legal Professions
The court considered an application for discovery claimed to be protected by litigation privilege: The court found "that in principle the existence or absence of privilege is not affected by whether the fraud concerns an earlier transaction or the conduct of the proceedings themselves".
1 Citers


 
Re Baron [2000] 1 BCLC 272
2000

Pumfrey J
Legal Professions
In order to obtain an order restricting the ability of a firm of solicitors to act against a former client for a conflict of interest, the applicant had to show a reasonable apprehension of potential conflict on the part of the former client and not a "mere theoretical possibility." The facts of the particular case must be analysed.
1 Citers



 
 In Re T and Another (Children); CA 1-Feb-2000 - Times, 01 February 2000; Gazette, 20 January 2000
 
In the matter of a solicitor (Jiwaji) Unreported, 2 February 2000
2 Feb 2000
CA
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Legal Professions
The applicant sought to have set aside an order that he be struck off the roll of solicitors. Held: The appeal failed. "It is true that no loss was in the result caused to any client and that the solicitor is not accused of dishonesty. Nonetheless his conduct undermined the control which the Law Society seeks to exercise over the recording of financial transactions in solicitors' offices, and in particular over the handling and disbursement of clients' monies. The solicitor had a serious record of previous failures, which had culminated in the clearest possible warning."
1 Citers



 
 Kelly and Shiels, In the Matter of; CANI 15-Feb-2000 - [2000] NICA 1
 
Paula May Gladys Douglas v Clifford Coppock and Carter (a Firm) [2000] EWCA Civ 43
16 Feb 2000
CA

Legal Professions

[ Bailii ]
 
Wilson Smith v The Law Society Unreported 21st February 2000
21 Feb 2000
ChD
Mr Justice Neuberger
Legal Professions
The court was considering a case where proceedings under paragraph 6(5) to terminate an intervention had been brought at a time when the solicitor against whose practice the intervention had been made was being proceeded against by the SDT on charges of dishonesty. Held: ". . . if Mr Wilson Smith is not found guilty, then the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings by no means necessarily determines the outcome of the application. Although I presume that the civil burden of proof will be applied by the tribunal it will obviously want to be satisfied on tolerably clear evidence before it concludes that Mr Wilson Smith was guilty of dishonesty. It is therefore by no means impossible that the tribunal will be doubtful about Mr Wilson Smith's honesty but will conclude that it is not satisfied on the evidence that Mr Wilson Smith was dishonest. That would not be inconsistent with the Society's maintaining the position that there is "reason to suspect dishonesty"… on the part of Mr Wilson Smith."
Solicitors Act 1974
1 Citers



 
 Her Majesty's Attorney General v Foley and Foley; CA 1-Mar-2000 - Gazette, 30 March 2000; Times, 07 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 62

 
 Regan v Taylor; CA 9-Mar-2000 - Times, 15 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 68; [2000] EMLR 549

 
 Edmonds v Lawson, Pardoe, and Del Fabbro; CA 10-Mar-2000 - Times, 16 March 2000; Gazette, 06 April 2000; [2000] All ER 31; [2000] EWCA Civ 69; [2000] 2 WLR 1091
 
Mealing Mcleod v Common Professional Examination Board [2000] EWHC 9007 (Costs)
13 Mar 2000
SCCO

Costs, Legal Professions

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Miller v Council of the Law Society of Scotland; OHCS 22-Mar-2000 - Times, 22 March 2000
 
Abedi v Penningtons [2000] EWCA Civ 85
23 Mar 2000
CA
Simon Brown, Otton, Judge LJJ
Legal Professions

Solicitors Act 1974
[ Bailii ]

 
 Chief Constable of Kent v Rixon, Rixon (Suing As Rixons Solicitors) and Wilson; CA 5-Apr-2000 - Times, 11 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 104
 
Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and others Times, 21 April 2000; [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 497; [2000] 3 WLR 910; [2000] EWCA Civ 118; [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 168; [2001] QB 113; [2000] PNLR 578
7 Apr 2000
CA
Evans, Aldous LJJ, Turner J
Company, Legal Professions, Vicarious Liability
The liability of a firm for the wrongful acts of one partner is not limited to tortious acts creating liability in common law, but includes all wrongful acts or omissions, including a knowing assistance in a fraudulent scheme. A solicitor who prepares documents for use in a fraudulent scheme, and gives supporting advice, unbeknown to his partners, is acting outside the ordinary course of business, and his partners are not vicariously liable for his acts.
Partnership Act 1890 10
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Perceval-Price, and others v Department of Economic Development etc; CANI 12-Apr-2000 - Times, 28 April 2000; [2000] NICA 9; [2000] NIECA 9; [2000] IRLR 380

 
 In Re A Barrister (Wasted Costs Order) (No 9 of 1990); CACD 18-Apr-2000 - Times, 18 April 2000; Gazette, 29 June 2000
 
Regina v Common Professional Examination Board, Ex Parte Mealing-Mcclead Times, 02 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 138
19 Apr 2000
CA

Costs, Legal Professions, Banking
A party was required to pay money into court before pursuing an appeal. She borrowed money for this purpose but on the express condition that it should be used for this purpose only and was not to become part of her general assets. The money was paid into court, but the appeal was compromised in her favour. The judge ordered payment out to her opponent, to satisfy earlier unsatisfied costs orders. Her request for leave to appeal succeeded. The trust was as between her and the bank, and no need of others being notified arose. As trustee for the bank, she had a duty to act to recover it, and so had locus standi.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cottingham and Another v Attey Bower and Jones (A Firm) Times, 19 April 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000; [2000] EGCS 48; [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 591
19 Apr 2000
ChD
Rimmer J
Land, Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
A solicitor acted on a purchase in 1993. He asked for but did not receive copies of building regulations consents from 1985. He went ahead anyway. Held: He had been negligent. He had been under a duty to continue the investigation, and to advise his clients that the replies relating to these consents appeared to be misleading. Some consents had been refused, and there remained a small risk of proceedings by the local authority for an injunction under section 36 (6) of the Building Act 1984, even though time limits had expired for other enforcement purposes. A solicitor is generally under a duty to provide specific information or advice, and not to advise on the wisdom of transactions in general. The fact that the claimant would not have purchased the property but for his negligence did not mean that the defendant was liable for every consequences which would not have happened but for the negligence. The loss for which he is responsible will normally be limited to the consequences of the specific information being inaccurate. Damages were awarded on the basis of the cost of rectifying the defect.
Building Act 1984 36(1) 36(2)

 
Secured Residential Funding plc v Douglas Goldberg Hendeles and Co (a Firm) Times, 26 April 2000; Gazette, 25 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 144
19 Apr 2000
CA

Agency, Land, Legal Professions
Two linked companies were in business from the same premises lending money on mortgage. A loan from one company was made but supported only by documentation in the name of the other. The error was noticed, but new documents not prepared until after completion. In possession proceedings, the lender had to show that the money had been advanced by its associate as its agent. The operative date was the date on which the mortgage advance was made, not on completion.
[ Bailii ]
 
In Re Hickman and Rose (Solicitors) (Wasted Costs Order) (No 10 of 1999) Times, 03 May 2000
19 Apr 2000
CACD
Lord Justice Clarke Mr Justice Kay And The Recorder Of Bristol His Honour Judge Dyer
Legal Professions, Costs
After a trial was aborted, the solicitors, acting on counsel's advice made an application for bail under the rules applying to the custody time limits. An unreported case had already decided the point, namely that once the jury had ben sworn, the limits ceased to apply. Though counsel, once told of the decision sought to withdraw the application, the solicitors were ordered to pay the costs of the application personally. Held: The order was set aside. It could not be said that the solicitors had acted improperly unreasonably or negligently. On such appeals it is important for those applying to make available transcripts of the events at the lower court.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 19A
1 Cites



 
 Gibbons and Another v Nelsons (A Firm) and Another; ChD 21-Apr-2000 - Times, 21 April 2000; Gazette, 11 May 2000; [2000] PNLR 734
 
Corbin v Penfold Metallising Co Ltd Gazette, 28 April 2000; Times, 02 May 2000; [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 247
28 Apr 2000
CA

Limitation, Legal Professions
The claimant was diagnosed as suffering from an industrial disease. He instructed solicitors promptly, but they failed to issue within the limitation period. The claimant applied for the time to be lengthened to allow him to claim. The court exercised their discretion in his favour. The failings of his solicitors should not be visited upon him. He had acted with proper speed, had employed solicitors to get on with it. The delay of nearly six months was not excessive.
Limitation Act 1980 33
1 Citers



 
 Berkshire and Oxfordshire Magistrates' Courts v Gannon and Another; QBD 10-May-2000 - Times, 10 May 2000; [2000] ICR 1003; [2000] EWHC Admin 326

 
 Fryer v Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; CA 16-May-2000 - Times, 16 May 2000

 
 Collins, Etridge; Gonzalez v Union Bank of Switzerland Barclays Bank Plc Richard Caplan and Co (a Firm) St Georges Street Trustees Limited St James's Trustees Limited; CA 25-May-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 176
 
In R H (A Minor) (Court Bundles: Disallowance of Fees) Times, 06 June 2000; Gazette, 15 June 2000
6 Jun 2000
CA

Family, Litigation Practice, Legal Professions
The court's practice direction on the provision of bundles and the specification of what the bundles should contain in Family Division cases, a warning to practitioners that they would have little by way of answer to a wasted costs order. The shorter the appointment the greater the need for appropriate bundles, and the judge should not be expected to have to rely upon the court papers.
1 Cites


 
Clarkson v Gilbert and others [2000] EWCA Civ 3018; [2000] CP Rep 58; [2000] 3 FCR 10; [2000] 2 FLR 839; [2000] Fam Law 808
14 Jun 2000
CA
Lord Woolf CJ, Aldous and Waller LJJ
Civil Procedure Rules, Legal Professions, Litigation Practice
The court considered the restrictions on lay representatives appearing in court as the related to relatives of the party. Held. The same objections to granting rights of audience did not apply to a husband who merely wished to assist his wife by representing her in court. Where a close relative was seeking to represent a party the question was whether there was good reason on the facts to grant it, such as ill health or lack of means.
Lord Woolf CJ said: "The overriding objective is that the courts should do justice. Now that legal aid is not available as readily as it was in the past means that there are going to be situations where litigants are forced to bring proceedings in person when they will need assistance. However, if they are litigants in person they must, in my judgment, establish why they need some other person who is not qualified to appear as an advocate on their behalf. In the ordinary way it will be for them to satisfy the court that that is appropriate. If somebody's health does not, or may not, enable them to conduct proceedings themselves, and if they lack means, those are the sort of circumstances that can justify a court saying that they should have somebody who can act as an advocate on their behalf."
He qualified the decision in D v S saying: "what I indicated in that case was intended for a situation which was of the sort there described and did not deal with a situation where a husband wished to appear for his wife. It does not matter whether it is said that the position is different in that case or whether it is said that the fact that a husband wishes to appear for somebody who is part of the same family makes it an exceptional situation. It is clear that the objections to someone setting themselves up as an unqualified advocate do not exist in a matter where a husband is merely seeking to assist his wife."
In this case: "I am satisfied that there would be a danger of Professor Clarkson being deprived of her right to have the case conducted before the courts in a way which would enable her claims to be investigated if she did not have the assistance of her husband as an advocate."
Waller LJ said: "I agree with my Lord on the proper principles to be applied to an application for a close relative to represent a litigant in person in order to have that right of audience. I also associate myself with my Lord's remarks in relation to his judgment in D v S (Rights of Audience) [1997] 1 FLR 724; I was a party to that judgment on that occasion. The position of a close relative seeking to exercise a right of audience is very different from the circumstances with which that case was concerned and it is unfortunate that the judge was possibly misled into applying a wrong test, as he did."
Clarke LJ said: "I agree with both judgments. The judge directed himself that the question which he should answer was whether there were exceptional circumstances which justified granting Mr Keter rights of audience under s 27(2)(c) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. I agree with my Lords that that is not the relevant question in a case of this kind. As I see it, the question is simply whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the court should exercise its discretion under s 27(2)(c). The section does not in any way fetter the exercise of the court's discretion, although the discretion must be exercised in the light of the objective of Part II of the Act set out in s 17(1) and of the general principle set out in s 17(3). In exercising the discretion in any particular case, I agree that the court must have in mind the general principles referred to by Lord Woolf. There is a spectrum of different circumstances which may arise so that it is difficult to lay down precise guidelines. Cases will vary greatly. For example, in a case where the proposed advocate is holding himself out as providing advocacy services, whether for reward or not, the court will only make an order under s 27(2)(c) in exceptional circumstances: D v S (Rights of Audience) [1997] 1 FLR 724. On the other hand, where the proposed advocate is a member of the litigant's family, the position is likely to be very different, although, as this case shows, even in such cases the circumstances may vary widely.
There is, in my judgment, no warrant for holding that in such cases an order should only be made in exceptional circumstances. To my mind there is nothing in any of the decisions to which we were referred, including D v S (Rights of Audience) [1997] 1 FLR 724, which requires us so to hold. All will depend upon the circumstances.
It follows that the judge did not ask the correct question and that it is for this court to exercise its own discretion. That discretion should only be exercised for good reason. The question is whether, having regard to the general principles set out by Lord Woolf, there is good reason on the facts of this case to permit Mr Keter to speak on behalf of the claimant at the forthcoming interlocutory applications and at any trial. To put it another way: is it just to permit him to do so?"
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 27(2)(c)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Council for Licensed Conveyancers Ex Parte West Gazette, 15 June 2000
15 Jun 2000
QBD

Legal Professions
The applicant sought to prevent disciplinary proceedings against himself on the grounds of the delay of the Council. The rules of procedure required the council to progress as soon as possible, but there had been a delay of 20 months. The council deciding to proceed had acknowledged the mandatory nature of the rule, but the case needed careful consideration and there were wider issues. The issue of the access to the files had not been decisive.
Licensed Conveyancers Discipline and Appeals Committee (Procedure) Rules Approval Order 1987

 
Regina v Council for Licensed Conveyancers Ex Parte Watson Times, 16 June 2000
16 Jun 2000
QBD

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
The dismissal of an action for negligence against a licensed conveyancer for failing to disclose to the client the existence of a right of way, did not prevent his professional body disciplining him out of the same facts and awarding compensation. The test of negligence is not the same as the test of whether he had provided an inadequate professional service.
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 Sch 8

 
Foxley v United Kingdom Times, 04 July 2000; (2001) 31 EHRR 637; 33274/96; [2000] ECHR 223; [2000] ECHR 224
20 Jun 2000
ECHR

Human Rights, Insolvency, Legal Professions
A bankrupt was suspected of disposing of his assets to avoid a confiscation order. The trustee in bankruptcy obtained an order for the bankrupt's post to be diverted to her whilst he was in prison. She opened all post and copied it before forwarding it to the bankrupt. This included correspondence with his legal advisers. The order and her practice infringed the bankrupt's human rights insofar as no distinction was made with respect to correspondence protected by legal privilege, and insofar as the order continued in effect after the bankrupt's discharge. "The Court can see no justification for this procedure and considers that the action taken was not in keeping with the principles of confidentiality and professional privilege attaching to relations between a lawyer and his client. It notes in this connection that the Government have not sought to argue that the privileged channel of communication was being abused; nor have they invoked any other exceptional circumstances which would serve to justify the interference with reference to their margin of appreciation."
Insolvency Act 1986 371 - European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Law Society v KPMG Peat Marwick and Others Times, 04 July 2000; Gazette, 27 July 2000; [2000] 1 All ER 515; [2000] 1 WLR 1921; A3/2000/0175; [2000] EWCA Civ 5563
29 Jun 2000
CA

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
The respondent accountants had certified accounts for a firm of solicitors whose dishonest defaults later lead to substantial claims on the compensation fund set up by the claimants. Held: The Law Society who collected funds from the profession at large and would have to pay out compensation were clearly owed a duty of care by the respondents.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Erridge v Coole and Haddock Gazette, 06 July 2000
6 Jul 2000
ChD

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
A solicitor had advised one party to a joint venture transaction. His advice was incorrect. He witnessed the signature of another partner who was not separately represented. Although the solicitor's advice was negligent, and he should have regarded himself as the solicitor for that party as regards parts of the agreement impacting upon him personally, the party would have proceeded anyway, and could show no loss personal to him.

 
Gregory v Shepherds Gazette, 29 June 2000; Gazette, 13 July 2000
13 Jul 2000
CA

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
An English solicitor, employing a lawyer in another jurisdiction to purchase land for a client was not himself negligent for a failure of that foreign lawyer. The lawyer was not employed as a kind of sub-contractor. Nevertheless the solicitor was negligent in his own act of paying the money across to the seller direct without first enquiring of the foreign lawyer that all proper searches and enquiries had been carried out.
1 Cites


 
Bernard Hill v The Council of the Law Society of Scotland [2000] ScotCS 196
14 Jul 2000
SCS
Lord Clarke and Lord Marnoch and Lord Prosser
Scotland, Legal Professions

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Gordon Coutts Thomson and Mrs Maria Teresa Thomson v Sheriff Kenneth Ross and others [2000] ScotCS 202
18 Jul 2000
SCS
Lord Eassie
Legal Professions, Defamation

[ Bailii ]
 
Walker and others v Stones and others Times, 26 September 2000; Gazette, 14 September 2000; [2000] Lloyds Rep PN 864
19 Jul 2000
CA
Sir Christopher Slade
Company, Legal Professions, Trusts, Equity, Vicarious Liability
Beneficiaries under a trust sought damages from a solicitor trustee, and the firm of which he was a partner. Held: Where a trustee acted in breach of trust in a claimed belief that he was acting in the interests of the beneficiaries, but no reasonable trustee in his place could have that belief, then an allegation against him of dishonesty should proceed. A trusteeship is not part of the normal duties of a partner of a firm, and the firm is not vicariously liable for the acts of a partner in such trusts. The court rejected the 'Robin Hood' test of dishonesty (a person is only regarded as dishonest if he transgresses his own standard of honesty, even if that standard is contrary to that of reasonable and honest people) saying: "A person may in some cases act dishonestly, according to the ordinary use of language, even though he genuinely believes that his action is morally justified. The penniless thief, for example, who picks the pocket of the multi-millionaire is dishonest even though he genuinely considers that theft is morally justified as a fair redistribution of wealth and that he is not therefore being dishonest."
"a claimant is entitled to recover damages where:
(a) the claimant can establish that the defendant's conduct has constituted a breach of some legal duty owed to him personally (whether under the law of contract, torts, trusts or any other branch of the law) AND
(b) on its assessment of the facts, the Court is satisfied that such breach of duty has caused him personal loss, separate and distinct from any loss that may have been occasioned to any corporate body in which he may be financially interested.
I further conclude that, if these two conditions are satisfied, the mere fact that the defendant's conduct may also have given rise to a cause of action at the suit of a company in which the claimant is financially interested (whether directly as a shareholder or indirectly as, for example, a beneficiary under a trust) will not deprive the plaintiff of his cause of action; in such a case, a plea of double jeopardy will not avail the defendant."
1 Citers


 
Arthur J S Hall and Co (A Firm) v Simons; Barratt v Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris v Schofield Roberts and Hill (A Firm) Gazette, 17 August 2000; Times, 21 July 2000; [2000] UKHL 38; [2000] 3 All ER 673; [2000] 3 WLR 543; [2000] 2 FLR 545; [2000] Fam Law 806; [2002] 1 AC 615
21 Jul 2000
HL
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett
Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
Clients sued their solicitors for negligence. The solicitors responded by claiming that, when acting as advocates, they had the same immunities granted to barristers. Held: The immunity from suit for negligence enjoyed by advocates acting in both criminal and civil proceedings is no longer appropriate or in the public interest and is removed: "The standard of care to be applied in negligence actions against an advocate is the same as that applicable to any other skilled professional who has to work in an environment where decisions and exercises of judgment have to be made in often difficult and time constrained circumstances. It requires a plaintiff to show that the error was one which no reasonably competent member of the relevant profession would have made." Recent changes in procedure designed to reduce vexatious litigation, and the doctrine against collateral attack should be dealt with by more specific remedies. Experience in foreign common law jurisdictions did not indicate a need for the immunity. The courts can be trusted to differentiate between errors of judgment and true negligence. The section did not create a statutory bar on claims in negligence.
Lord Hope discussed an advocate's duty to the court: "it is necessary to appreciate the extent of that duty and the extent to which the efficiency of our systems of criminal justice depends on it. The advocate’s duty to the court is not just that he must not mislead the court, that he must ensure that the facts are presented fairly and that he must draw the attention of the court to the relevant authorities even if they are against him. It extends to the whole way in which the client’s case is presented, so that time is not wasted and the court is able to focus on the issues as efficiently and economically as possible."
Lord Hoffmann set out two policies which underlie discouragement of relitigation: "The law discourages relitigation of the same issues except by means of an appeal. The Latin maxims often quoted are nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa and interest rei publicae ut finis sit litium. They are usually mentioned in tandem but it is important to notice that the policies they state are not quite the same. The first is concerned with the interests of the defendant: a person should not be troubled twice for the same reason. This policy has generated the rules which prevent relitigation when the parties are the same: autrefois acquit, res judicata and issue estoppel. The second policy is wider: it is concerned with the interests of the state. There is a general public interest in the same issue not being litigated over again. The second policy can be used to justify the extension of the rules of issue estoppel to cases in which the parties are not the same but the circumstances are such as to bring the case within the spirit of the rules."
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 62
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Somatra Limited v Sinclair Roche and Temperley (a Firm) etc; CA 26-Jul-2000 - Gazette, 14 September 2000; Times, 22 September 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 229; [2000] 1 WLR 2453
 
In Re L (Minors) (Care Proceedings: Cohabiting Solicitors) Times, 27 July 2000; Gazette, 19 October 2000
27 Jul 2000
FD

Legal Professions, Family
Where two solicitors who cohabited appeared on either side of a case, it was appropriate, if objection was taken, for either or both to withdraw. The cohabitation could give rise to a perception of bias. The power to remove an advocate is inherent and statutory. The freedom to choose one's advocate is fundamental, and must be limited only with great care. An injection was unnecessary, and the court can remove the name from the court record. No formal or general rule can be set as to the circumstances in which such decisions may need to be made.


 
 Green v Hancocks (A Firm) and Another; ChD 15-Aug-2000 - Times, 15 August 2000
 
Guild (Claims) Ltd v Eversheds (A Firm) and Others Times, 16 August 2000
16 Aug 2000
ChD

Professional Negligence, Legal Professions
A professional adviser's duty not to stand by while a client makes a statement he knows to be false does not extend to the offering of unsought advice as to the wisdom of an act or omission which fell short of such a misleading act. When the advice of a professional was challenged, the standard by which it came to be judged was whether he acted in accordance with practice accepted by a responsible body of skilled practitioners at the time.

 
In Petition of Gordon Coutts Thomson and Maria Theresa Thomson and Answers for the Council of the Law Society of Scotland [2000] ScotCS 244
31 Aug 2000
SCS
Lord Prosser
Legal Professions

[ Bailii ]
 
Dooley v The Law Society (No 1) Unreported, 15 September 2000
15 Sep 2000
ChD
Neuberger J
Legal Professions
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, primarily whether there are grounds for suspecting dishonesty. Secondly, if the Court is so satisfied, then it must consider whether in the light of all the evidence before it the intervention should continue. In deciding the second question, the Court must carry out a balancing exercise between the need in the public interest to protect the public from dishonest solicitors and the inevitably very serious consequences if the intervention continues."
Solicitors Act 1974
1 Citers


 
Langley Holdings v Seakens Unreported, 19 October 2000
19 Oct 2000
QBD

Legal Professions, Company
The claimant sought recovery from one of two partners in a solicitors' firm of solicitors of sums paid to the firm and misappropriated by the partner, who had conspired with others to offer a fraudulent investment. The claimant admitted that the promised return was incredible. The funds were received on an undertaking that they would not be used absent documentation. That undertaking was broken. It was in a solicitor's ordinary course of business to hold money for his client. Nevertheless the defendant contended that the "underlying transaction" had been "extraordinary" and "outlandish" and no reasonable person could have acted in it; and that the claimant could have had no genuine belief. Held: The claimant was so dazzled by the promised profits that they had not asked whether there was a genuine investment. The recipt of the funds could not have been in the ordinary course of the business of a solicitor, and it followed that the partner was not liable.
Partnership Act 1890 10
1 Citers


 
In Re Nottingham Forest Plc Gazette, 19 October 2000
19 Oct 2000
CA

Legal Professions, Company
The petitioners, being shareholders in the company, sought disclosure of documents prepared by way of legal advice given anticipating possible litigation if a proposed restructuring of the company. No litigation being in hand, the advice was obtained by the directors with company funds in which the applicants had an interest, and so the advice was held by the directors as cestui que trust for the company as a whole. No legal privilege attached, and the documents were to be disclosed.


 
 Browell and Others v Goodyear; ChD 24-Oct-2000 - Times, 24 October 2000
 
Thomson and Another v Sheriff Ross and Others [2000] ScotCS 264
25 Oct 2000
SCS
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, Lord Dawson, Lord Wheatley
Legal Professions, Defamation
The pursuers and reclaimers seek damages against the defenders on the ground that they have suffered loss, injury and damage by reason of the libellous and defamatory statements of the defenders and respondents. At the time that the statements were made the pursuers were enrolled solicitors and partners in a law firm, Gordon Thomson & Co. Damages are sought both for injury to their feelings and their reputation and for substantial financial loss including loss of their legal business and two related businesses. The defenders are, respectively, the individual who was President of the Law Society of Scotland at the relevant time (the first defender), the Law Society itself (the second defenders) and, as the fourth to ninth named individuals, those individuals who constituted the members of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, which between October 1994 and April 1995 heard two complaints alleging professional misconduct concerning the pursuers' law firm and the partners of it. Held: Stateable cases having been presented, the case should be allowed to go ahead.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Miller v Allied Sainif (Uk) Ltd; ChD 31-Oct-2000 - Times, 31 October 2000

 
 Stein v Blake; ChD 31-Oct-2000 - Times, 31 October 2000; Gazette, 09 November 2000
 
Regina v A Special Commissioner, ex parte Morgan Grenfell and Co Ltd Gazette, 15 December 2000; Times, 22 November 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 415
8 Nov 2000
Admn

Taxes Management, Legal Professions
The rights of the inspectors to demand papers under the Act could override the protection of legal privilege which might otherwise be given to them. Construing the Act as a whole it was clear that legal professional privilege was not respected save where expressly preserved.
Taxes Management Act 1970
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment) (No 2); CA 15-Nov-2000 - Times, 15 November 2000
 
Regina v Nangle Times, 09 January 2001; Gazette, 23 November 2000
23 Nov 2000
CACD

Legal Professions, Criminal Practice, Human Rights
The test of whether the defence conducted on behalf of the defendant, was so incompetent that his trial could not be described as fair, may now, because of the Human Rights Convention be less than the 'flagrant incompetence' formerly required. If the incompetence did reach such a level as to have denied him a fair trial, then his right might have been reached. The case before the court involving various allegations was not such as to make the trial not fair, and in this case there was no need to decide in detail what that standard might be.
The provisions of the Human Rights Act may have made inappropriate the old standard for judging the need for a retrial in a criminal matter where incompetence was alleged against counsel, but the case before the court involving various allegations was not such as to make the trial not fair, and in this case there was no need to decide in detail what that standard might be.

 
Medcalf v Mardell and Others Times, 02 January 2001; Gazette, 01 February 2001
24 Nov 2000
CA

Legal Professions, Costs
Counsel who wished to insert an allegation of fraudulent activity, or similar, into an application to amend a notice of appeal, must be sure not only that they have the clear and direct instructions of the clients to do this, but also that they found available material to justify the allegation in a format in which it could be produced to court in evidence. Where such material was unavailable because the client declined to waive confidence, counsel was at risk of a wasted costs order. Counsel are immune from defamation for such matters, and accordingly must behave responsibly.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Regina v Law Society, ex parte Mortgage Corporation; QBD 30-Nov-2000 - Gazette, 30 November 2000
 
Mensah v Islington Council and Another [2000] EWCA Civ 405; [2002] CP Rep 2
1 Dec 2000
CA
Peter Gibson LJ, Arden LJ
Local Government, Negligence, Legal Professions, Litigation Practice
Permission was sought for a McKenzie friend to address the court. Peter Gibson LJ said: "In accordance with the overriding objective of the CPR and to avoid the waste of today's hearing, attended as this court had earlier directed, by counsel for the defendants, we took the exceptional course in this highly unsatisfactory situation of allowing Mr Alexander to speak for Mr Mensah.
But I must make it clear that this should not be taken as creating any precedent as to how those who have no right of audience can act as advocates for litigants in person. Anyone who aspires to be an advocate should obtain the requisite qualifications, and the court should be very slow to permit those who are allowed to be present in court as Mackenzie friends to act as advocates. That is not the proper function of a Mackenzie friend. The position in law was recently restated by this court in R v Bow County Court ex parte Pelling [1999] 1 WLR 1807. I repeat and endorse the warning given by Lord Woolf MR at page 1825 that if a person chooses to appear regularly as a Mackenzie friend and uses the litigant as a mere puppet, such behaviour could provide a firm foundation for a judge not wishing him to be present as a Mackenzie friend."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Byrne Esq and Fisher, Lowry (Student) v Honourable Society of Middle Temple [2000] EWHC Admin 427
6 Dec 2000
Admn
Douglas Brown, Bennett, Hart JJ
Legal Professions
Appeal against refusal of admission to the Inn
[ Bailii ]
 
Pine v Law Society (1) Unreported, 13 December 2000
13 Dec 2000
Admn
Crane J, Lord Wool,f Lord Chief Justice and Rafferty J
Legal Professions
The court considered the independence of the Law Society's disciplinary tribunal: "Standing back, and bearing in mind the statutory scheme for the Disciplinary Tribunal, I see no reason to doubt its independence or impartiality. It is independent of the Law Society. There is no indication that the Law Society can influence its decisions, except in the sense of making submissions to the Tribunal as a party before the Tribunal. No evidence or suggestion has been made that the particular Tribunal demonstrated any partiality in any way. In my judgment, the submission that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal does not meet the test of being an independent and impartial tribunal is not made out. I turn to the question of legal representation, which is the appellant's main point. Returning to Article 6, he accepts, and authority confirms, that what was in question here was the determination of his civil rights and obligations, not of any criminal charge against him. It follows, therefore, that Article 6(3), which requires in certain circumstances legal representation in criminal cases, does not apply."
1 Citers



 
 Jewo Ferrous Bv v Lewis Moore (A Firm); CA 21-Dec-2000 - Times, 21 December 2000
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.