Four barristers challenged, by a judicial review, a decision by which the LSB approved an application proposed by the BSB jointly with two other approved regulators, the SRA and IPS, to introduce the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates
Judges:
Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Bean, Cranston JJ
Citations:
[2014] EWHC 28 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rondel v Worsley HL 1967
Need for Advocate’s Immunity from Negligence
The appellant had obtained the services of the respondent barrister to defend him on a dock brief, and alleged that the respondent had been negligent in the conduct of his defence.
Held: The House considered the immunity from suit of . .
Cited – Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell and Co (a Firm) HL 1978
Extent of Counsel’s Immunity in Negligence
The House considered the extent of a barrister’s immunity from action in negligence, and particularly whether it covered pre-trial acts or omissions in connection with civil proceedings.
Held: A barrister’s immunity from suit extended only to . .
Cited – Arthur JS Hall and Co (A Firm) v Simons; Barratt v Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris v Schofield Roberts and Hill (A Firm) HL 20-Jul-2000
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 . .
Cited – Oliver v Symons CA 15-Mar-2012
The parties disputed the extent of a right of way, the claimant appealing against the rejection of his claim for ‘swing space’ alongside the right of way.
Held: The appeal failed. Elias LJ said that the ‘argument for swing space fails. That is . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
See Also – Lumsdon and Others v Legal Services Board Admn 30-Oct-2013
The claimants, practising barristers and members of the Criminal Bar Association sought a declaration that the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates approved by the defendant was unlawful. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Lumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board and Others CA 7-Oct-2014
The claimants sought to challenge the respondent’s decision to introduce the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates.
Held: Arden LJ and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR analysed the cases as yielding a ‘manifestly inappropriate’ test. They then . .
At First Instance – Lumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellant, barristers and solicitors, challenged the respondent’s approval of alterations to their regulatory arrangements, under Part 3 of Schedule 4 to the 2007 Act. The alterations gave effect to the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Aid, Legal Professions
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.519976