‘The Law Society has to take into account the public interest in deciding whether to exercise its powers of intervention at all. The public interest requires a balance to be struck between the draconian effect of intervention and the matters referred to earlier in this judgment. Second, I have considerable doubts about the jurisdiction of this court to adopt the sort of solution envisaged by Peter Smith J in paragraphs 70 and 71 of his judgment. Intervention in its full form is the statutory remedy entrusted by Parliament to the Law Society in order to regulate the profession. It is not, in [my] view, open to the courts to devise a different and less draconian remedy. . . ‘
Judges:
His Honour Judge Behrens QC
Citations:
Unreported, 4 September 2002
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Sritharan v Law Society CA 27-Apr-2005
The Law Society had intervened in the applicant’s legal practice as a solicitor, and his practising certificate had been automatically suspended. He applied to the court to remove the suspension.
Held: The powers exercised were statutory. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.224870
