Some twenty years after the events, the claimant still sought compensation following the alleged negligence of his former solicitor. He now sought it from the Law Society’s compensation fund. The Law Society said the nature of his claim was outside the provisions for the compensation fund, since it was not a matter arising from dishonesty and nor from misuse of client funds.
Held: The claim failed. The decision by the Society’s committee was not irrational, and the claimant had not properly understood the nature of the fund.
 EWHC Admin 770
England and Wales
Cited – Birkett v James HL 1977
Exercise of Power to Strike Out
The court has an inherent power to strike out an action for want of prosecution, and the House set down the conditions for its exercise. The power is discretionary and exercisable only where (a) there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay and . .
Cited – Regina v Law Society, ex parte Matthews 17-Mar-1994
The court considered the management of the statutory Solicitors Compensation Fund: ‘Given, however, what I have already said about the statutory purpose of the compensation fund, it seems to me that it is appropriate to say that the clearest case in . .
Cited – Regina v Law Society ex parte Mortgage Express Limited; Regina v Law Society ex parte Alliance and Leicester Building Society CA 17-Dec-1996
The court considered the duties of the respondent in administering the Compensation Fund: ‘It seems clear from the current legislation that the history of the fund and the mode of operating it that the solicitors’ profession was never intended or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.140034