LINDA LU v SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY

LINDA LU v SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY

The tribunal was correct in refusing to anonymise Ms Lu's identity, redact her social media account, or employment history, as the principle of open justice and relevant legal standards were properly applied. However, the tribunal erred in granting anonymity to the two law firms and certain individuals without adequate justification or application of the correct legal test. The appeal succeeded only on the grounds relating to unjustified anonymity for third parties; all other grounds were dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Linda Lu; Respondent: Solicitors Regulation Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Anonymity Orders, Publication of Judgments, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Costs, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Professional Discipline Human Rights Open Justice Anonymity Orders Publication of Judgments Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR +2 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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Lu

Appellant

Solicitors Regulation Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal erred in refusing to anonymise the appellant's identity in its published judgment
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal erred in refusing to redact the appellant's social media account details and employment history
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal erred in anonymising the two law firms and certain individuals

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal was correct in refusing to anonymise Ms Lu's identity, redact her social media account, or employment history, as the principle of open justice and relevant legal standards were properly applied. However, the tribunal erred in granting anonymity to the two law firms and certain individuals without adequate justification or application of the correct legal test. The appeal succeeded only on the grounds relating to unjustified anonymity for third parties; all other grounds were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; dismissed in part

Orders

  • Grounds 10 and 13 (unjustified anonymity for third parties) upheld; all other grounds dismissed
  • No further order by way of remedy; this judgment naming relevant persons suffices