Hosein (Appellant) v Ramnarine-Hill (Respondent) (Trinidad & Tobago)

Hosein (Appellant) v Ramnarine-Hill (Respondent) (Trinidad & Tobago)

The Disciplinary Committee was entitled to exclude the letter due to non-disclosure, and its findings of fact were properly made and supported by evidence; there was no procedural irregularity or unfairness warranting intervention.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] UKPC 28
Parties
Appellant: Shaheed Hosein; Respondent: Uthra Ramnarine-Hill
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
25 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Professional Disciplinary Appeal / Final Appeal Before Privy Council
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Exclusion of Evidence, Standards of Appellate Review, Forgery, Misrepresentation
Professional Discipline Legal Ethics Procedural Fairness Exclusion of Evidence Standards of Appellate Review Forgery Misrepresentation

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaheed Hosein

Appellant

Uthra Ramnarine-Hill

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Professional Disciplinary Appeal / Final Appeal Before Privy Council

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Disciplinary Committee's report was procedurally irregular and should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether exclusion of the 'excluded letter' was erroneous and unfair
  3. 3 Whether the Disciplinary Committee gave adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant's defence

Ratio Decidendi

The Disciplinary Committee was entitled to exclude the letter due to non-disclosure, and its findings of fact were properly made and supported by evidence; there was no procedural irregularity or unfairness warranting intervention.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed