Baxendale-Walker v The Law Society

Baxendale-Walker v The Law Society

The Tribunal was functus officio upon announcing its order; the three-year suspension was justified given the reckless and serious breach of professional duty; the costs order against the Law Society was wrong in law as there was no finding of impropriety in bringing the unsuccessful allegation.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Paul Michael Baxendale-Walker; Defendant/respondent: The Law Society; Intervener: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Law Society’s cross-appeal on costs allowed
Legal Topics
Solicitors’ Misconduct, Functus Officio, Costs in Disciplinary Proceedings, Suspension of Solicitors
Professional Discipline Administrative Law Solicitors’ Misconduct Functus Officio Costs in Disciplinary Proceedings Suspension of Solicitors

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Michael Baxendale-Walker

Claimant/appellant

The Law Society

Defendant/respondent

Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal was functus officio after announcing its order but before giving reasons
  2. 2 Whether the order of suspension was plainly wrong or excessive
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in law in ordering the Law Society to pay 30% of the appellant’s costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was functus officio upon announcing its order; the three-year suspension was justified given the reckless and serious breach of professional duty; the costs order against the Law Society was wrong in law as there was no finding of impropriety in bringing the unsuccessful allegation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Law Society’s cross-appeal on costs allowed

Orders

  • Appellant’s appeal against suspension dismissed
  • Law Society’s appeal on costs allowed; Tribunal’s order set aside