Adams v Law Society of England & Wales

Adams v Law Society of England & Wales

There was no merit in the applications for permission to appeal or for adjournment. The intervention proceedings were summary in nature, the claim was rendered pointless by delay and changed circumstances, and the Bar Council Joint Tribunal's decision was not a public law matter. Article 6 ECHR was not breached. Adjournment was refused as there was no realistic prospect of the applicant being ready in the foreseeable future and no merit in the underlying applications.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Nigel Adams; Defendant/respondent: The Law Society of England and Wales; Defendant/respondent: The Bar Council Joint Tribunal & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal and Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Appeal (and for Adjournment) From High Court Decisions
Outcome
Applications for adjournment and for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Intervention in Solicitor's Practice, Judicial Review of Private Tribunal, Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial), Costs, Adjournment Applications
Civil Procedure Professional Regulation Judicial Review Abuse of Process Intervention in Solicitor's Practice Judicial Review of Private Tribunal Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial) Costs +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Adams

Claimant/appellant

The Law Society of England and Wales

Defendant/respondent

The Bar Council Joint Tribunal & Others

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal and Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Appeal (and for Adjournment) From High Court Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applications for adjournment and permission to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the intervention in the solicitor's practice was lawful and justified
  3. 3 Whether the Law Society's actions breached Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

There was no merit in the applications for permission to appeal or for adjournment. The intervention proceedings were summary in nature, the claim was rendered pointless by delay and changed circumstances, and the Bar Council Joint Tribunal's decision was not a public law matter. Article 6 ECHR was not breached. Adjournment was refused as there was no realistic prospect of the applicant being ready in the foreseeable future and no merit in the underlying applications.

Court Disposition

Applications for adjournment and for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for adjournment refused.
  • Application for permission to appeal in Adams v The Law Society refused.