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 required to assume an open ended liability to meet any unsatisfied loss sustained by any party caused by the dishonesty of any solicitor. The liability imposed (for instance) on banks and stockbrokers is very much more modest. Any discretion in a matter of this kind must, of course, be exercised reasonably, fairly, in good faith, so far as possible consistently and with regard to the objects of the legislation. But there is nothing to prevent the Law Society formulating and following their own policies which satisfy these criteria, provided they do not fetter their discretion by applying such policies inflexibly and without recognising that exceptional cases may call for exceptional exercises of discretion. Administering a limited fund exposed to potentially unlimited demands, and with a membership whose resources are finite, the Law Society are in practice bound (and in law they are entitled) to give priority to those classes of claim which they regard, for sustainable reasons, as having the most pressing claim to be met (wholly or in part) out of the fund. This inevitably means that some applicants who succeed at the first stage fail at the second. All they have a right to seek is a favourable exercise of discretion.’
Judges:
Lord Bingham CJ
Citations:
[1997] 2 All ER 348, [1996] EWCA Civ 1234
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Law Society ex parte Birkett Admn 30-Jul-1999
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141102