The Law Society v Elsdon & Ors

The Law Society v Elsdon & Ors

The application for permission to appeal was refused because none of the grounds advanced had a realistic prospect of success. The judge at first instance correctly applied the legal principles, found cogent evidence of dishonesty and breaches of the code, and properly weighed the risks of reinstatement versus continued intervention. Procedural complaints did not amount to unfairness or error of law.

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
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (oral Hearing)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Solicitors Regulation Authority Intervention, Dishonesty, Overcharging, Costs, Legal Services Act, Solicitors Act
Professional Regulation Legal Profession Solicitors Regulation Authority Intervention Dishonesty Overcharging Costs Legal Services Act Solicitors Act

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 10
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

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to withdraw the SRA intervention into the practices of Mr Elsdon and Sai-Donne Limited
  2. 2 Whether the suspicion of dishonesty and breaches of SRA rules justified continued intervention
  3. 3 Whether procedural disadvantages to the applicants rendered the process unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because none of the grounds advanced had a realistic prospect of success. The judge at first instance correctly applied the legal principles, found cogent evidence of dishonesty and breaches of the code, and properly weighed the risks of reinstatement versus continued intervention. Procedural complaints did not amount to unfairness or error of law.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

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