DOCSLIB.ORG

Anne Jeavons

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anne Jeavons 3 Verulam Buildings WC1R 5NT DX: LDE 331 Gray’s Inn, London. Telephone: +44(0)20 7831 8441 Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board Anne Jeavons Email Address: [email protected] Year Of Call: 2008 Anne has a commercial practice specialising in banking and financial services, civil fraud, civil recovery, insolvency and professional negligence. Anne has been consistently listed in Chambers and Partners since 2013, when she was rated as a ‘Star of the Bar’ (Five Years’ Call and Under). She is described as “Very level-headed, smart, responsive, commercial, good technically and a pleasure to deal with.” Anne is regularly instructed as junior counsel in complex commercial disputes, most recently representing Hertz in Ryanair D.A.C. v Hertz Europe Limited, listed as a Top 20 case of 2018 by The Lawyer. In addition to acting as a junior, Anne also regularly appears as sole counsel in the High Court and County Court, with particular emphasis on banking disputes, debt claims (including Consumer Credit Act agreement claims), possession hearings and 'bank charges' disputes. Anne also has particular experience of retail banking disputes, most recently, advising in respect of allegations of mis-selling of interest rate products. Anne also undertakes a significant amount of asset recovery work, and is a member of the Serious Fraud Office’s Panel of Counsel (Proceeds of Crime). Before coming to the Bar, Anne qualified as a solicitor at Linklaters LLP (2005-2007) and was an associate in the commercial litigation department (2007-2008), where she advised on contractual disputes, commercial fraud, pension disputes and a large Serious Fraud Office investigation, all invariably with a significant international element. Directory Quotes “She is commercially astute and tenacious.” Chambers & Partners UK 2016 “Her submissions were concise and accurate, and she dealt well with things when on her feet. Quite understated, but everything she said was brilliant.”; “She’s bright, sensible and sound in her advice.” Page 1 / 7 3 Verulam Buildings WC1R 5NT DX: LDE 331 Gray’s Inn, London. Telephone: +44(0)20 7831 8441 Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board Chambers & Partners UK 2015 Expertise Commercial Dispute Resolution Anne is ranked in band 5 by Chambers & Partners (2020) for commercial litigation, where she is described as “Very switched-on and great to work with”. Anne has consistently been listed in the Directories since 2013. Anne regularly appears in the High Court and County Court in general commercial matters. Current and recent instructions include: Romelle Swire Limited v (1) SBD International Limited(ongoing), acting for the Defendants in a multi-million GBP claim for breach of contract, and counterclaim for an account and damages. Led by Jonathan Nash QC, instructed by Withers LLP. Azzouz v United Insurance Company & ors (2020), acting for the Defendant in a multi-million GBP claim arising out of the destruction of property in Syria. Led by Tom Weitzman QC, instructed by Eversheds Sutherland. Zymurgorium Limited v Hammonds of Knutsford (ongoing). Instructed on behalf of the Defendant / Counterclaimant in respect of a claim for breach of a wholesale agreement for the sale of specialist gin. Sole Counsel, instructed by APP Law. Heat Trace (UK) Ltd v Heat Trace Limited: (ongoing). Instructed on behalf of the Defendant in a claim for breach of contract, arising out of distributorship and alleged joint venture agreement for the production and supply of specialist heat tracing equipment. Sole Counsel, instructed by APP Law. Ryanair D.A.C. v Hertz International (2018), acting for Hertz in a multi-million EUR claim brought against it by Ryanair for alleged breach of contract, raising issues of contractual interpretation, affirmation, and estoppel, as well as a novel points of mitigation and causation. The case was ranked as a top 20 case of 2018 by The Lawyer. Led by Andrew Sutcliffe QC, instructed by Fox Williams LLP. Goodall v (1) Santander plc (2) Strategic Investment Solutions (2017); defended Santander UK plc against a claim for alleged mis-selling of a residential mortgage. Successfully obtained strike out of the claim against D1 over a 3 day hearing before HHJ Barling J (ChD, Manchester District Registry) and obtained an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant. RDK International LLC v Huckshott Ltd & Ors(2016); instructed as junior counsel in conjoined proceedings involving a dispute between businessmen Mr Khagram and Mr Khan, in a procedurally and factually complex commission claim. Led by Matthew Hardwick QC, instructed by Hugh Cartwright & Amin. LAEP Investments Ltd v Emerging Markets Special Situations 3 Limited(Court of Appeal for Bermuda) (2015); instructed by Appleby (Bermuda) in response to LAEP’s application for an order Page 2 / 7 3 Verulam Buildings WC1R 5NT DX: LDE 331 Gray’s Inn, London. Telephone: +44(0)20 7831 8441 Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board suspending an order enforcing an arbitration award. (Oral advocacy undertaken by local advocates: [2015] CA (BDA) 10 Civ, 9. Bermuda Digital Communications Ltd v Regulatory Authority (Supreme Court of Bermuda) (2015); instructed by Appleby (Bermuda) in respect of BDC’s application for a stay pending the outcome of an appeal against a decision of the Regulatory Authority concerning the allocation of spectrum licenses. (Oral advocacy undertaken by local advocates: [2015] SC (Bda) 18 App). Berezovsky v Abramovich & Ors and Berezovsky v Hine & Ors ([2012] EWHC 2463 (Comm)), acted for Russian businessman, Mr Anisimov, in the long-running claim brought by Mr Berezovsky to have had an interest in Russian aluminium company RusAl and the Russian metallurgical company Metalloinvest. Led by Ali Malek QC and Sonia Tolaney QC; instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. Issues arising included contract and tort claims, fiduciary duties, tracing, applicable law, privacy issues arising out of commercially sensitive information, and procedural issues following from the partial joining of four multiparty actions across two different divisions of the High Court. Dunbar Bank PLC v Dorcas Holdings Limited. Instructed as sole counsel on in a multi-party possession claim in respect of a £3.4 million debt. Instructed by DLA on behalf of Dunbar Bank PLC (County Court). HLCF Limited v Barclays Bank plc, (Chancery Division); instructed by DLA on behalf of Barclays Bank in a substantial breach of contract claim. Led by Andrew Sutcliffe QC (2011). Aviva Commercial Finance Limited v Brooks Properties Ltd & Ors (2010); acted for Aviva in a multi- million pound contract claim and possession proceedings. Led by Sonia Tolaney; instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP. Advising liquidators as to potential claims against former directors. Appeared for the successful judgment creditor in an interpleader application for the return of seized goods (2010) (High Court, Queen’s Bench Division); instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP. Successfully defended Wincanton plc in the trial of a breach of contract claim brought against it by a former contractor. In addition to court work, Anne undertakes a significant amount of written work, including drafting pleadings and providing written advice on all areas of general commercial law. Past experience as a litigation solicitor includes assisting an international company subject to a lengthy Serious Fraud Office investigation, including advising as to compliance and anti-money laundering procedures when operating in multiple jurisdictions, and advising a large consultancy firm in a multi-million pound pensions dispute. Banking & Finance Recent and current instructions include: Page 3 / 7 3 Verulam Buildings WC1R 5NT DX: LDE 331 Gray’s Inn, London. Telephone: +44(0)20 7831 8441 Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board Lloyds Bank implementations of the Cranston Review (ongoing). Instructed by Lloyds Bank in respect of the implementation of the recommendations arising out of the Cranston Report. Led by Rory Phillips QC. The Cranston Review (2019): Working with Sir Ross Cranston in reviewing Lloyds Bank plc’s Customer Review compensation scheme for customers who were impacted by the fraud at the Impaired Assets Office at HBOS Reading. Led by Sir Ross Cranston and Rory Phillips QC. Report published December 2019 Instructed by Lloyds Bank. Malekmadani v Royal Bank of Scotland plc(2018); successfully obtained strike out / summary judgment of a claim for consequential losses following FCA Review of the sale of an interest rate swap, and allegations of misselling of underlying swap and loan product. Instructed by DLA Piper LLP. Wenta Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc (2017); acted for the defendants in a claim brought under s.138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 for alleged mis-selling of an interest rate swap. Raised specific points as to the scope of the test for a ‘private person’ under s.138D, and as set out by David Steel J in Titan Steel Wheels v The Royal Bank of Scotland [2010] EWHC 211 (Comm), as to whether charities and not-for-profit enterprises are outwith that test or not. The case also raised allegations of mezzanine advisory duties, fiduciary duties, and contractual estoppel. Led by John Odgers QC for the trial (settled 3 days prior to commencement) and as sole counsel prior thereto. Instructed by DLA Piper LLP. Patel v National Westminster Bank plc (ongoing); instructed a sole counsel in claims brought under s.138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and under common law for alleged mis- selling of interest rate products. Instructed by DLA Piper LLP. Goodall v (1) Santander plc (2) Strategic Investment Solutions (2017); defended Santander UK plc against a claim for alleged mis-selling of a residential mortgage. Successfully obtained strike out of the claim against D1 over a 3 day hearing before HHJ Barling J (ChD, Manchester District Registry) and obtained an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant. Celebration Properties v Lloyds Bank plc (2017); mis-selling claim concerning sale of a fixed rate loan in 2008.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mergermarket League Tables of Legal Advisers to Global M&A for Full Year
    January 10, 2008 mergermarket league tables of legal advisers to global M&A for Full Year 2007 Contacts: Table of Contents: Europe Global League Tables and Data 2-4 Nancy Costantinopoli (deal queries, submissions, etc.) European League Tables 5-13 [email protected] North American Tables 14-17 Asia-Pacifi c League Tables 18-22 Hannah Bagshawe (PR) Global M&A Breakdown 23 [email protected] Criteria 24 Tel: +44 20 7059 6118 About mergermarket 25 North America Jennifer Ruiz (deal queries, submissions, etc.) [email protected] Tel: +1 212-686-3016 Hannah Bagshawe (PR) [email protected] Tel: +44 20 7059 6118 Asia-Pacifi c Carrie Ho (deal queries, submissions etc) [email protected] Tel: + 852 2158 9725 Seye Im (PR) [email protected] Tel: +852 2158 9706 mergermarket M&A league tables of legal advisers 2007 - January 10, 2008 Page 1 Global League Tables of Legal Advisers League Table of Legal Advisers to Global M&A: Value League Table of Legal Advisers to Global M&A: Volume Y/E Y/E Value No of Y/E Y/E Value No of 2006 2007 Company Name (USDm) Deals 2006 2007 Company Name (USDm) Deals 2 1 Sullivan & Cromwell 833,016 162 4 1 Latham & Watkins 409,513 374 1 2 Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom 726,876 271 2 2 Clifford Chance 687,515 360 5 3 Freshfi elds Bruckhaus Deringer 721,579 326 1 3 DLA Piper 74,148 351 10 4 Clifford Chance 687,515 360 3 4 Linklaters 610,947 333 13 5 Allen & Overy 625,862 310 6 5 Freshfi elds Bruckhaus Deringer 721,579 326 4 6 Linklaters 610,947 333 7 6
    [Show full text]
  • Moving Towards a Fairer Fee Policy: Report on Responses to Consultation
    Moving towards a fairer fee policy Report on responses to consultation paper 19 Table of contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2 Responses to the questions................................................................................................. 4 Principles and objectives of any new fee structure....................................................... 4 Preferred Models .......................................................................................................... 8 Special Cases............................................................................................................. 11 Compensation Fund ................................................................................................... 13 Impacts of the new regime on private practice ........................................................... 15 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 16 30/10/2009 1 www.sra.org.uk Introduction 1. The consultation paper, Moving towards a Fairer Fee Policy, was part of the first phase of an engagement strategy designed to collate views of the profession, its representative bodies and other stakeholders on how the costs of regulation should be shared and what the best approach to establish a fairer fee charging structure should be. It also dealt with new ways of setting compensation fund contributions. 2. The consultation
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Authorisation Framework for the Approval of Education and Training
    Authorisation Framework for the Approval of Education and Training Organisations (DRAFT 9.3, 3 October 2017) BSB Authorisation Framework CONTENTS Table of Contents PREAMBLE ............................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 2 COMPONENTS AND PATHWAYS ........................................................................... 4 AUTHORISATION, RE-AUTHORISATION AND MONITORING............................... 8 THE FOUR PRINCIPLES – WHAT THEY MEAN .................................................... 10 FLEXIBILITY ....................................................................................................................... 10 ACCESSIBILITY ................................................................................................................. 11 AFFORDABILITY ................................................................................................................ 12 HIGH STANDARDS ............................................................................................................ 13 THE FOUR PRINCIPLES – WHAT THE BSB WANTS TO SEE - INDICATORS ... 14 FLEXIBILITY ....................................................................................................................... 14 Strategic Goals and Oversight ......................................................................................... 14 Education and Training ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting of the Bar Standards Board
    Meeting of the Bar Standards Board Thursday 27 November 2014, 4.30 pm Room 1, First Floor, Bar Standards Board Offices, 289-293 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7HZ Agenda Part 1 – Public Page 1. Welcome and introductions Chair (4.30 pm) 2. Apologies Chair 3. Members’ interests and hospitality Chair 4. Approval of Part 1 (public) minutes: 23 October 2014 Annex A 3-10 5. Matters Arising Chair’s sign off of BTT Handbook; BPTC Handbook; General Guide to CPD; Pupillage Handbook. 6. a) Action points and progress Annex B Chair 11-16 b) Forward agendas Annex C Chair 17-18 Items for discussion 7. Performance Report for Q2 (Jul – Sept 2014) BSB 082 (14) Anne Wright 19-36 (4.40 pm) 8. BSB annual report on BTAS and the Browne BSB 083 (14) Vanessa Davies 37-53 recommendations (5.00 pm) 9. Chair’s Report on Visits and Meetings: BSB 084 (14) Chair 55-56 Oct 14 – Nov 14 10. Director General’s Report BSB 085 (14) Vanessa Davies 57-68 (5.20 pm) 11. Any other business (5.25 pm) 12. Date of next meetings Thursday 11 December 2014 (Board Away Day) Thursday 29 January 2015 (full Board meeting) 13. Private Session John Picken, Board & Committees Officer [email protected] 20 November 2014 BSB 271114 2 ANNEX A Part 1 - Public Part 1 - Public Minutes of the Bar Standards Board meeting Thursday 23 October 2014, Room 1.1, First Floor 289 – 293 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7HZ Present: Ruth Deech QC (Hon) (Chair) Patricia Robertson QC (Vice Chair) Rolande Anderson Rob Behrens Sarah Clarke (items 7-17) Justine Davidge Tim Robinson Andrew Sanders Anne Wright
    [Show full text]
  • The Bsb Handbook Part Ii
    Annexe D Part II: The Code of Conduct THE BSB HANDBOOK PART II – THE CODE OF CONDUCT CONTENTS A. APPLICATION B. THE CORE DUTIES C. THE CONDUCT RULES C1 YOU AND THE COURT C2 BEHAVING ETHICALLY C3 YOU AND YOUR CLIENT C4 YOU AND YOUR REGULATOR C5 YOU AND YOUR PRACTICE C5.1 GENERAL C5.2 SELF-EMPLOYED BARRISTERS C5.3 CHAMBERS C.5.4 ENTITIES D. RULES APPLYING TO SPECIFIC GROUPS OF REGULATED PERSONS D1 SELF-EMPLOYED BARRISTERS, CHAMBERS, BSB AUTHORISED BODIES AND THEIR MANAGERS D1.1 COMPLAINTS RULES D1.2 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY D1.3 PUPILLAGE FUNDING AND ADVERTISING D2 BARRISTERS UNDERTAKING PUBLIC ACCESS OR LICENSED ACCESS WORK D2.1 PUBLIC ACCESS RULES D2.2 LICENSED ACCESS RULES D3 PRACTISING BARRISTERS OR ENTITIES PROVIDING CRIMINAL ADVOCACY D4.1 QASA RULES1 1 To be added later 1 Annexe D Part II: The Code of Conduct D4 REGISTERED EUROPEAN LAWYERS D5 UNREGISTERED BARRISTERS D6 CROSS BORDER ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA2 2 To be added later 2 Part II : The Code of Conduct Section A: Application A. APPLICATION II.A1. [Link to main introduction] II.A2. Who? II.A2.1 Section II.B (Core Duties): applies to all BSB regulated persons except where stated otherwise, and references to "you" and "your" in Section II.B shall be construed accordingly. II.A2.2 Section II.C (Conduct Rules): (a) Applies to all BSB regulated persons apart from unregistered barristers except where stated otherwise. (b) Rules II.C1.R2, II.C1.R3, II.C2.R1, II.C3.R2, II.C3.R5 and II.C4.R1 to II.C4.R7 (and associated guidance to those rules) and the guidance on Core Duties also apply to unregistered barristers.
    [Show full text]
  • Portugal's Largest Law Firm, PLMJ, Recently Suffered the Horror of A
    E N G N.83 • 04.04.2019 The Man at the Top SPOTLIGHT ON URÍA MENÉNDEZ’S SALVADOR SÁNCHEZ-TERÁN Outlook WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR SPAIN AND PORTUGAL’S LAW FIRMS M&A Market AT WAR WITH THE ‘BIG FOUR’ In-house: Portugal LEONOR PISSARRA (NOVARTIS): TALENT SPOTTING In-house: Spain FRANÇOISE PLUSQUELLEC (CITI PRIVATE BANK): BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS LIVING A NIGHTMARE Portugal’s largest law firm, PLMJ, recently suffered the horror of a cyberattack that resulted in highly confidential information being published – with such attacks on the increase, what should law firms do to minimise the risk of becoming victims? LO QUE MEJOR HACEMOS EN EL SUR. EDITORIAL A NEW ERA FOR THE IBERIAN LEGAL COMMUNITY by ben cook Welcome to the all-new Iberian Lawyer magazine! The aim of this new publication is to ‘change the game’ with regard to media coverage of the Spanish Wand Portuguese legal markets. 444 Iberian Lawyer 83 | 3 EDITORIAL Over a number of years, Iberian Lawyer has built a reputation for well-researched authoritative journalism. The new style magazine will aim to further build on this reputation, while, at the same time, combining in-depth analysis with the most up-to-date news from the Spanish and Portuguese legal sectors. In addition, the Iberian Lawyer website will be enhanced in order to create the most up-to-date daily online information platform covering the Iberian legal market. The re-launched magazine and website will breathe new life into what is our fundamental passion: high quality, insightful journalism. The new, re-shaped content will thoroughly modernise legal business writing and use a more innovative method of storytelling to convey ideas OUR EDITORIAL POLICY regarding the major issues that are affecting IS TO COVER ALL THE lawyers in Spain and Portugal.
    [Show full text]
  • Professional Courses GDL/CPE, LPC, BPTC and LLM Contents
    Bristol Institute of Legal Practice www.uwe.ac.uk Professional Courses GDL/CPE, LPC, BPTC and LLM Contents Why choose Bristol Institute of Legal 3 Practice (BILP)? Enhancing employability 4 Careers and student support 5 Graduate Diploma in Law/CPE (GDL/CPE) 9 (full-time and part-time) Legal Practice Course (LPC) 14 (full-time and part-time) Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) 25 (full-time and part-time) LLM Advanced Legal Practice 29 Visit us 30 Financial Information 30 2 www.uwe.ac.uk/bilp Why choose Bristol Institute of Legal Practice? The Bristol Institute of Legal Practice (BILP) is part of the wider Faculty of Business and Law at UWE (which comprises Bristol Law School and Bristol Business School). With more than forty years’ successful involvement in professional vocational legal education, a strong national and international reputation and established links with both legal professions and business, we are widely recognised as one of the leading providers of professional legal education in the UK. We have a reputation for excellence within the legal profession and for delivering courses of the very highest quality. BILP’s professional courses will provide you with a foundation for a career in Law that is hard to match. • We understand that students today face increasing competition to secure employment in a challenging and rapidly changing market place and we put great emphasis on the careers support and added business focus that we give our students. • Our LPC is one of a very few providers nationally to have continuously held the SRA’s highest possible grading of ‘excellent’.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Bar Training Consultation on The
    Annex 1 to BSB Paper 002 (16) Part 1 – Public Future Bar Training Consultation on the Future of Training for the Bar: Academic, Vocational and Professional Stages of Training Summary of responses January 2016 BSB 280116 Annex 1 to BSB Paper 002 (16) Part 1 – Public Executive Summary Background to the consultation In summer 2013, the Bar Standards Board (BSB), the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and ILEX Professional Standards (IPS; now called CILEX Regulation) published the Legal Education and Training Review (LETR). This was a large, independent review of the system of training legal professionals in England and Wales. The review recognised many good features in the system for training barristers. It also looked to the future and recommended reform so that training would be better matched for barristers and clients in 2020 and beyond. In February 2015, we published our vision for the future of training for the Bar. In that paper, we set out our proposal for a Professional Statement that describes the standards that should be expected of all authorised barristers upon entry to the profession. In addition, we explained why we were embarking on a review of how we are involved in setting education and training requirements for barristers. The Future Bar Training consultation, launched in the summer of 2015, built on that paper, exploring what changes might be made to the current system. It examined possible approaches to reform of the system and regulatory requirements, and considered the current three-stage formulation of training. Responses to the consultation There were 58 responses to the consultation.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018-Am-Law-100-Insi
    The Am Law 100’s Hard‐Won Profitability Growth and the Changed Dynamics of Competition Insights for Partners From a Decade of Upheaval Hugh A. Simons and Nicholas Bruch May 8, 2018 1 Hello my name is Nicholas Bruch [email protected] @NicholasBruch Hugh A. Simons [email protected] @SimonsHugh Preview: Today’s storyline Review of the past decade reveals stark changes in how law firms must manage themselves to improve profitability significantly and sustainably. 1. As firms realized the economy wasn’t going to bail them out, most turned to “management”—actively managing partner capacity, leverage, and costs—to get back to rising profitability. 2. “Management” has proven so effective it has undermined long‐held tenets of strategy: • The market is no longer consolidating—a firm doesn’t have to bulk up so as not to be on the wrong side of consolidation. • The market isn’t bifurcating by size or profitability— there are no such fault line firms need to be on one side of. • Mergers aren’t creating advantage: merged firms are under‐performing their peers. • Building out global footprints is weakening, not strengthening, domestic positions. 3 Takeaways for partners 1. Help leaders to not do stupid stuff. 2. Let leaders manage • Particularly: let leaders manage numbers of equity partners and leverage. • Also: encouraging delegation (i.e. leverage in action); controlling costs, etc. 4 1. Don’t do stupid stuff. Go after lightly‐differentiated work with low leverage. Have the range of partner comp be narrower than the range of economics of individual partners’ practices. Grow by planting flags around the globe.
    [Show full text]
  • Northumbria Research Link
    Northumbria Research Link Citation: Mckeown, Paul (2019) “We don’t need no thought control” What is the intent and impact of teaching values in clinical legal education? Doctoral thesis, Northumbria University. This version was downloaded from Northumbria Research Link: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/43950/ Northumbria University has developed Northumbria Research Link (NRL) to enable users to access the University’s research output. Copyright © and moral rights for items on NRL are retained by the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. Single copies of full items can be reproduced, displayed or performed, and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided the authors, title and full bibliographic details are given, as well as a hyperlink and/or URL to the original metadata page. The content must not be changed in any way. Full items must not be sold commercially in any format or medium without formal permission of the copyright holder. The full policy is available online: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/pol i cies.html “WE DON’T NEED NO THOUGHT CONTROL” WHAT IS THE INTENT AND IMPACT OF TEACHING VALUES IN CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION? Paul McKeown Northumbria Law School A written commentary submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Northumbria at Newcastle for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Published Work October 2019 For Fraser and Aoife Declaration I declare that no outputs submitted for this degree have been submitted for a research degree of any other institution.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft SB EIA
    ANNEX 4 Consultation Response CONTENTS Page No INTRODUCTION 3-4 OUTCOME OF THE CONSULTATION 4-26 -Summary of Responses by Question 4-5 -Summary of Responses by Theme 5-20 -Standard of Proof 5-10 -The issue of a Lay Majority 11-12 -Fitness to Practise 12-13 -Propensity 13-14 -Vulnerable Witnesses 14-15 -Equality and Diversity Implications 15-19 -Sufficiency of Consultation 19-20 -Other Points 20-26 -Proposed amendments to Rule 25 in respect of Agreed Outcomes 20-21 -Proposed amendments to other draft rules 21-26 NEXT STEPS 26 ANNEXES: Annex 1: Analysis of the responses received Annex 2: Consultation Responses Annex 3: Post Consultation Rules Annex 4: Equality Impact Assessment 2 Introduction 1. The Tribunal is constituted as a statutory tribunal under Section 46 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The Tribunal adjudicates upon alleged breaches of rules or the Solicitors Code of Conduct, which are designed to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the legal profession, by defining standards for honesty, probity, trustworthiness, independence and integrity. The Tribunal also adjudicates upon the alleged misconduct of recognised bodies, registered foreign lawyers and persons employed by solicitors. It also hears applications for restoration to the Solicitors’ Roll. 2. Solicitor Members of the Tribunal are wholly independent of the Council of the Law Society and have no connection with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“the SRA”), which instigates over 90% of the cases currently dealt with by the Tribunal. 3. Section 46 of the Solicitors Act 1974 enables the Tribunal to make rules about its procedures. The Tribunal already has rules in place (the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2007 (2007 No.3588)) (“2007 Rules”) which are used in relation to the Tribunal’s disciplinary jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Katherine Jane Lumsdon and Others -V- Legal Services Board and Others
    Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 28 (Admin) Case No: CO/12583/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 20/01/2014 Before : THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (SIR BRIAN LEVESON) MR JUSTICE BEAN MR JUSTICE CRANSTON BETWEEN THE QUEEN on the application of (1) KATHERINE JANE LUMSDON (2) RUFUS TAYLOR (3) DAVID HOWKER QC (4) CHRISTOPHER HEWERTSON Claimants - and - LEGAL SERVICES BOARD Defendant - and - (1) GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR (acting by the BAR STANDARDS BOARD) (2) SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY (3) ILEX PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS (4) LAW SOCIETY Interested Parties Dinah Rose QC, Tom de la Mare QC, Mark Trafford, Charlotte Kilroy and Jana Sadler- Forster (instructed by Baker & McKenzie) for the Claimants Nigel Giffin QC and Duncan Sinclair (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse) for the Defendant (LSB) Timothy Dutton QC and Tetyana Nesterchuk (instructed by Bevan Brittan) for the First Interested Party (BSB) Chloe Carpenter (instructed by Kingsley Napley) for the Second Interested Party (SRA) Helen Mountfield QC and Chris Buttler (instructed by Natalie Turner) for the Fourth Interested Party (Law Society) The Third Interested Party did not appear and was not represented Hearing dates: 28-29 November and 2 December 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Lumsdon v Legal Services Board The President of the Queen’s Bench Division: This is the judgment of the Court, to which we have all contributed. Introduction 1. It is a critical test of the freedom inherent in our democratic society that those accused (usually by the State) of committing criminal offences can and should be represented by capable criminal advocates, independent in spirit who, subject to the rules of law and procedure which operate in our courts and to the dictates of professional propriety, are prepared to put the interests of their clients at the forefront and irrespective of personal disadvantage.
    [Show full text]