Holder v The Law Society [2003] EWCA Civ 39 (24 January 2003)

Holder v The Law Society [2003] EWCA Civ 39 (24 January 2003)

The Law Society's intervention was justified under the statutory regime and did not infringe the claimant's rights under Article 1 or Article 6 ECHR. The statutory procedure strikes a fair balance and falls within the margin of appreciation allowed to Parliament and the Law Society. There was no real prospect of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 39
Parties
Claimant/respondent: David Herman Holder; Defendant/appellant: The Law Society
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of the Master restored; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Solicitors Act 1974 Intervention Powers, Human Rights Act 1998, Article 1 First Protocol ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Judicial Review of Regulatory Intervention, Proportionality and Margin of Appreciation
Professional Regulation Human Rights Law Solicitors Act 1974 Intervention Powers Human Rights Act 1998 Article 1 First Protocol ECHR Article 6 ECHR Judicial Review of Regulatory Intervention Proportionality and Margin of Appreciation

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Herman Holder

Claimant/respondent

The Law Society

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Law Society's intervention in the claimant's practice under the Solicitors Act 1974 was justified
  2. 2 Whether the intervention procedure infringed the claimant's rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR (peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's Article 6 right to a fair hearing was breached

Ratio Decidendi

The Law Society's intervention was justified under the statutory regime and did not infringe the claimant's rights under Article 1 or Article 6 ECHR. The statutory procedure strikes a fair balance and falls within the margin of appreciation allowed to Parliament and the Law Society. There was no real prospect of the claimant establishing a human rights breach on the facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of the Master restored; claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The order of the Master dismissing the claim is restored.