30 May 2022
The Court granted a stay because the applicant's jurisdictional and penalty‑guideline challenges were arguable, the balance of convenience favoured preserving her position until a prompt substantive hearing, and the Racing Integrity Board would not be prejudiced by a temporary suspension of the determinations.
25 Jun 2021
The Tribunal's imposition of a nine‑month suspension, censure and specified conditions was within the permissible and proportionate range given the deliberate, orchestrated and repeated dishonest conduct involving substantial sums, the overlap with professional responsibilities and lack of insight; the High Court found no error in the Tribunal's assessment or penalty and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal correctly interpreted the Legal Services Act: disciplinary proceedings fall within 'civil matters' and the s45 protection applies to aided persons in such proceedings, so no costs order shou…
29 Apr 2021
The High Court held the Tribunal correctly applied the established two-stage test: it was entitled to find negligence and conduct likely to bring discredit at stage one but correctly concluded at stage two that the departures were not of sufficient significance to amount to professional misconduct given the modest prescriptions, the patient's diversionary fraud, the short time period and available Part 3 competence remedies; the appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal decision affirmed.
4 Nov 2019
Adjournment was refused because the applicant had been put on clear notice, had been served the documents, failed to comply with timetable directions, could have lodged handwritten submissions, and unexplained delay would prejudice resolution; lack of immediate computer access did not warrant adjournment.
7 Aug 2019
The District Court erred in law by deferring final determination of the appeals after upholding the Tribunal and by mischaracterising the purpose of the interim orders; r18.24 cannot be used to avoid the effect of s84 or to perpetuate interim arrangements that were intended to preserve positions pending appeal. The District Court must determine the appeals promptly and may, as part of that lawful determination under s84, vary the Tribunal's decision if appropriate in light of changed circumstances, but it may not lawfully defer final disposition to frustrate the Tribunal's sanctions.
6 Nov 2018
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant did not raise a question of law of sufficient general or public importance or one warranting Court of Appeal determination; most points were factual or settled by precedent (notably Orlov and Doré), delay was attributable to the applicant, comparative and penalty complaints were factual, and costs had been addressed.
15 Mar 2017
The High Court set aside the Tribunal's finding that r 6.4 was breached because there was no misleading statement meeting the requisite threshold of being capable of materially affecting the purchaser and the licensee acted honestly with a genuine belief as to his role; having quashed the unsatisfactory conduct finding the Court exercised the Committee's s 80(2) discretion to take no action in respect of the admitted r 12.1 breach on grounds that further action was unnecessary given the minor nature of the transgression and the respondent's record.
11 Mar 2016
The Deputy Registrar correctly applied r 5(4) and gave adequate reasons: the grounds advanced relate to the applicant's personal disciplinary dispute and factual complaints, not matters of genuine public interest, so fee waiver is not justified and the review is dismissed.
17 May 2013
The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's factual conclusion that the appellant intentionally accessed child pornography; the Tribunal's suspension and conditions were within the reasonable range given the need to protect the public and uphold professional standards, but the combined financial burden of the costs award and required rehabilitation programme was disproportionate, warranting reduction of the costs contribution from 35% to 5%.
20 Dec 2010
Appellant's persistent refusal to comply with lawful Standards Committee inquiries, wrongful refusal to discharge a client's mortgage coupled with repeated obstructive, abusive and unprofessional conduct demonstrated a sustained failure to meet required standards of integrity and an absence of insight, creating a real risk of repetition; those collective findings justified the Tribunal's conclusion that he was not a fit and proper person and warranted striking off; the High Court, having reviewed the facts and law, was not persuaded the Tribunal's decision was wrong and dismissed the appeal.