The appellant said that the Board had infringed her human rights in its approach to disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared and now sought a remedy. The Board successfully argued that her claims were out of time.
Held: the limitation period under section 7(5)(a) had started to run when the Disciplinary Tribunal had found the charges against the Appellant proved and so had expired before she had issued her claim. She now appealed against that decision.
Held: The appeal failed. The one year time limit under section 7(5)(a) of the 1998 Act had started to run when the Disciplinary Tribunal had found the charges against the claimant proved and so had expired before she had issued her claim. The Court of Appeal refused a renewed application for permission to appeal on the ground that the limitation period should have been extended pursuant to section 7(5)(b) of the 1998 Act.
Judges:
Lord Dyson MR, Elias, Sharp LJJ
Citations:
[2016] EWCA Civ 775, [2016] WLR(D) 421, [2016] 1 WLR 4085
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 14, Human Rights Act 1998 7(5)(a)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
At first instance – O’Connor v Bar Standards Board QBD 18-Dec-2014
Appeal against an order of Deputy Master Eyre by which he struck out the appellant’s statements of case and dismissed the action with judgment for the defendant with costs. The claimant said that the procedures adopted by the Board in disciplinary . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – O’Connor v Bar Standards Board SC 6-Dec-2017
The claimant barrister complained of the manner of conduct of the disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared of any breach of the Bar Code of Conduct, but her claim was then ruled out of time under section 7(5)(a), time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Legal Professions
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.567507