We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Mr Bryant brought an appeal following the imposition by the SRA
of conditions on his Practising Certificate. The claimant's
practice had been intervened by the SRA. Mr Bryant was initially
struck off for dishonesty, but on appeal he managed to persuade the
Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to reduce his sanction to a two
year suspension. Once his suspension had expired, subsequent
Practising Certificates were issued subject to conditions.
The basis of Mr Bryant's latest appeal was that Solicitors
practising subject to conditions found it almost impossible to
obtain employment. The Court dismissed this, however, on the basis
that even if conditions were not imposed, Mr Bryant would face the
same difficulties given his disciplinary record which would need to
be supplied to any prospective employer and their insurer. The
difficulty of obtaining employment or indemnity insurance in the
circumstances was not a sufficient reason to justify the removal of
the conditions, especially as those conditions were sensible and
proportionate.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
On 24 April 2013 the DIFC Court of First Instance issued an important judgment accepting jurisdiction over a dispute between a DIFC-based reinsurer and an Abu Dhabi based insurance company.
The China Insurance Regulatory Commission promulgated the Notice on Relevant Issues regarding Investment and Shareholding of Limited Partnership Equity Investment Enterprises in Insurance Companies.
A discussion on whether a third party to a contract could obtain stay of legal proceedings against it and rely on arbitration agreement in the contract.
A discussion on a recent judgment of the High Court of New Zealand, which indicates how New Zealand courts will approach indemnity disputes associated with commercial property damage caused by the Christchurch earthquakes.
This case considered whether, where a liability policy contained an exclusion excluding liability arising under a contract, unless such liability would have attached in the absence of such a contract, and where there was a judgment finding the insured liable for breach of contract, that foreclosed the question as to whether there was also tortious liability that would fall within the terms of cover.
A recent Court of Appeal case, has fired a warning shot that the costs of preparation could be disallowed if skeleton arguments are not kept as concise as possible.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
