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 applied that test in the different context of a national measure restricting a fundamental freedom.
Laws LJ correctly attached importance to case law concerned with national measures restricting the free movement of goods, but focused particularly upon a case concerned with the maintenance of a national retail monopoly (Rosengren v Riksaklagaren), in which the court found that the monopoly was unsuitable for attaining the ostensible aim of protecting health.
Lord Dyson MR, Fulford, Sharp lJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1276, [2014] WLR(D) 413
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
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. . .
Appeal from – Lumsdon and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Legal Services Board Admn 20-Jan-2014
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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 Professions, European
Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537365
