Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
(DAR Transcript of WordWave International Limited A Merrill Communications Company 190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
THE APPELLANT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED. MS M BUTLER (instructed by The Solicitors Regulation Authority) appeared on behalf of the Respondent. ____________________
The second preliminary point is this: that the appellant requested that this hearing be conducted in private, by letter dated 25�June. He did not however give any grounds as to why the hearing should be conducted in private.
The SRA does not consent to it being heard in private and it further submits that there is no good reason for holding the hearing in private. The general principle which I adopt can be seen in L v The Law Society (No 13 of 2008) [2008] EWCA Civ 811 . It is only in a rare case that it is appropriate to hold a hearing of this kind in private. In the present case I see no reason whatever to depart from the general rule that this hearing, like most hearings, should take place in public.
That exemption application was dealt with by Mr�Nigel�Butcher, an SRA�Adjudicator on 24�September�2007. The application was refused. In giving reasons for a refusal Mr�Butcher said this:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.