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.
Oliver Assersohn (instructed by Radcliffes Le Brasseur) for the Claimant Ben Jaffey QC (instructed by Latham & Watkins) for the Defendant Monica Carss-Frisk QC (instructed by CMS) for the Interested Party Hearing date: 6 April 2017 ____________________
The claimant says that the verbs "to ask" (as an infinitive) in the first sentence, and "requiring" (in the present continuous tense) in the second sentence grant the accused the right to insist on a public hearing. I do not agree with this reading whether it is analysed grammatically or purposively.
The second reason for designating these disciplinary proceedings as private business (see para 5 above) seems to me to mirror exactly Bentham's third exception.
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.