Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal held that a breach of SRA Principle 7 and Outcome 7.5 requires conduct serious enough to amount to professional misconduct, not any regulatory breach.
The Privy Council dismissed a disciplinary appeal by a Jamaican lawyer found guilty of inexcusable negligence after repaying a property deposit to the wrong co-purchaser.
The appeal fails because the conflicts of interest issue was pleaded and presented narrowly, the judge's findings of fact are unchallenged, and causation and loss were not adequately pleaded or proved; even if a conflict existed, it would not have caused loss.
Source excerpt
Hurst v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2026] EWHC 85 (Admin) (20 January 2026)
The High Court allowed Mr Hurst’s appeal against SDT findings over emails and letters sent to Dan Neidle, holding the tribunal’s reasoning was deficient and its conclusions unsafe.
Ayinde, R (On the Application Of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin) (03 April 2025)
The court refused relief from sanctions, debarred the defendant from the judicial review hearing, and made a wasted costs order over fake citations and misstatements.
Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Dentons UK and Middle East LLP [2025] EWHC 535 (Admin) (11 March 2025)
The High Court allowed the SRA’s appeal, holding the Tribunal applied the wrong test by adding a seriousness threshold to a proven AML breach.
Mex Group Worldwide Ltd v Duthei & Anor [2025] EWHC 426 (KB) (14 February 2025)
The High Court refused to vary undertakings restricting use of confidential information, finding no special change in circumstances and rejecting a merits-based approach.
The SDT was not plainly wrong in finding that Mr Greene did not lie or act dishonestly or recklessly in his evidence to the County Court, as his inaccurate statements were inadvertent and based on his genuine belief without access to the relevant file. There was no procedural impropriety in refusing an oral closing speech, and the SDT's costs order was within its discretion.
Source excerpt
The claimants' allegations of breach of duty, conflict of interest, conspiracy, and negligence against their legal team were wholly unsubstantiated. The so-called 'B Shares Mistake' was immaterial, caused no loss, and was not concealed. The advice to discontinue was professionally and reasonably given due to the collapse of the claimants' case at trial, lack of credible evidence, and professional obligations not to pursue hopeless claims. No breach of duty, negligence, or dishonesty was established. The claims were entirely without merit and dismissed in full.
Source excerpt
RPC was in breach of duty by failing to advise Ms Forster on costs, expert selection, and the Deacon Funding Agreement, and by refusing to enforce the First Tomlin Order as instructed. RPC gave a clear assurance that Ms Forster would receive £350,000 compensation (less interest) in priority, and is estopped from denying this. These breaches caused Ms Forster to lose a real chance to recover her compensation, valued at 55% of £350,000.
Source excerpt
Explore more
