Pine v Law Society, Court of Appeal - Civil Division, October 25, 2001, [2002] UKHRR 81,[2001] EWCA Civ 1574

Reporting Judge: [2002] UKHRR 81,[2001] EWCA Civ 1574

President: Pine v Law Society

Linked as:

Extract

Pine v Law Society, Court of Appeal - Civil Division, October 25, 2001, [2002] UKHRR 81,[2001] EWCA Civ 1574

Case No: C/2000/3561 & 3561A

Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 1574

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

DIVISIONAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand,

London, WC2A 2LL

Thursday 25th October 2001

B e f o r e :

THE VICE-CHANCELLOR

LORD JUSTICE BUXTON

and

LADY JUSTICE ARDEN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of

Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street

London EC4A 2AG

Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr. Nicholas Blake, QC and Mr. Julian Knowles (instructed by Messrs Irwin Mitchell for the Appellant)

Mr. Timothy Dutton QC, and Mr. Mark Hoskins and Mr. Geoffrey Williams (solicitor advocate) (instructed by Messrs Geoffrey Williams Christopher Green for the Respondents)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JudgmentThe Vice-Chancellor :

Introduction

1. The appellant, Mr Pine, was admitted as a solicitor in 1985. On 17th August 1999 allegations of conduct unbefitting a solicitor were preferred to the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal (``the Tribunal'') by Mr Geoffrey Williams on behalf of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (``OSS''). At the conclusion of the hearing of those allegations held on 8th February 2000, at which Mr Pine was neither present nor represented, the Tribunal found that all the allegations had been substantiated and ordered that Mr Pine be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.

2. Mr Pine appealed to the High Court pursuant to s.49 Solicitors Act 1974 on the grounds that on the evidence before the Tribunal no reasonable tribunal could have reached those conclusions. Shortly before the hearing of that appeal Mr Pine submitted a written argument in which he relied on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights but not on the ground set out in his notice of appeal. He contended that the Tribunal was not independent or impartial and that...

See the full content of this document