Blog
Kingsley Napley’s Medical Negligence Team ‘walks together’ with the Dame Vera Lynn Children’s Charity
Sharon Burkill
23 August 2012
E-Regulator: O’Connor v Bar Standards Board [2012] All ER (D) 108 (unreported)
Court overturn finding of professional misconduct by Bar Standards Board disciplinary tribunal; what does and does not amount to ‘conducting litigation’?
The appellant was a self-employed barrister who had set up a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). In May 2011, the appellant had been found guilty of five counts of professional misconduct by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) disciplinary tribunal (the tribunal). A number of the counts related to the signing by the appellant of the statement of truth that attaches to the statement of case in proceedings.
6 August 2012
E-Regulator: R (on the application of Patel) v General Medical Council [2012] EWHC 2120 (Admin)
Had the General Medical Council acted unlawfully by failing to recognise an overseas qualification it had previously approved?
The claimant (‘P’) challenged the decision of the General Medical Council (‘GMC’) to refuse to accept his Primary Medical Qualification (‘PMQ’), obtained from the International University of Health Sciences, St Kitts and Nevis (‘IUHS’), before Hickinbottom J in the Administrative Court.
6 August 2012
E-Regulator: R. (on the application of Hill) v Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales [2012] EWHC 1731 (QB)
Absence of panel member during crucial part of hearing was, whilst permissible under the relevant rules, a breach of natural justice and fairness.
The claimant in this matter (H) was a chartered accountant who had applied for judicial review of a decision by the defendant, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (the Institute) that had been made in the course of disciplinary proceedings...
6 August 2012
E-Regulator: Bass and Another v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2012] EWHC 2012 (Admin)
Financial penalty reduced by High Court as Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal fail to address material question of commencement date of the 2007 Rules.
The appellants, Partners (B) in a law firm, appealed a finding that they had breached Rule 5 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 in relation to supervision of a fixed-share partner (P).
An investigation into the firm in October 2007 brought to light that P had breached the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules by billing residual clients’ accounts as profit costs without authority and transferred sums directly into the office account. No allegation of dishonesty was made against any of the parties. On discovering the breach, the Partners immediately dismissed P, repaid the monies and reported the matter to the Solicitors Regulation Authority...
6 August 2012
E-Regulator: Iqbal v Solicitors Regulation Authority (unreported)
Is erasure from the Roll of Solicitors an appropriate sanction where dishonesty has not been found but manifest incompetence has?
The appellant was a solicitor admitted in 1998, and in 2006 he began operating a firm where he was the sole practitioner. The allegations he faced before the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SDT) were twofold; firstly in relation to conduct in holding out two individuals as partners at his firm; the second relating to breaches of the Solicitors Accounts Rules. The first allegation formed the basis of the appeal, specifically the sanction of erasure.