The Law Society v Elsdon & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 306 (01 February 2016)

The Law Society v Elsdon & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 306 (01 February 2016)

There was clear and cogent evidence of dishonesty and breaches of SRA rules by Mr Elsdon and Sai-Donne. The risks of withdrawing the intervention outweighed those of continuing it. The judge's directions and conduct of the hearing were reasonable and proportionate. None of the applicants' grounds had a realistic prospect of success on appeal.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 306
Parties
Respondent/claimant: The Law Society; Applicant/defendant: Michael John Elsdon; Applicant/defendant: Marianne Josephine Jane Elsdon; Applicant/defendant: Sai-Donne Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal / Court of Appeal, Oral Hearing Following Refusal on Papers
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Solicitors Regulation Authority Intervention, Suspected Dishonesty, Overcharging, Withdrawal of Intervention, Costs Assessment
Professional Regulation Probate Legal Ethics Solicitors Regulation Authority Intervention Suspected Dishonesty Overcharging Withdrawal of Intervention Costs Assessment

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Law Society

Respondent/claimant

Michael John Elsdon

Applicant/defendant

Marianne Josephine Jane Elsdon

Applicant/defendant

Sai-Donne Limited

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal / Court of Appeal, Oral Hearing Following Refusal on Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was good reason to suspect dishonesty justifying SRA intervention
  2. 2 Whether procedural disadvantages to applicants warranted permission to appeal
  3. 3 Whether overcharging and breaches of SRA rules justified intervention

Ratio Decidendi

There was clear and cogent evidence of dishonesty and breaches of SRA rules by Mr Elsdon and Sai-Donne. The risks of withdrawing the intervention outweighed those of continuing it. The judge's directions and conduct of the hearing were reasonable and proportionate. None of the applicants' grounds had a realistic prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Applications for withdrawal of intervention dismissed
  • Applicants required to pay Law Society's costs to be assessed if not agreed