One for BV72 - court dress?
Discussion
janesmith1950 said:
Blacker is a nob, however the separate issue (not necessarily in Blacker's case, he ignored the means request) over the farsical levels of SDT costs is a valid one. They seem to pick a number, double it and add 10.
Agreed on both counts. It does seem as if being on the SRA's panel to investigate and prosecute SDT cases is a licence to print money for those firms appointed to it. This isn't the first time I've read an SDT case report, saw how much the defaulter was ordered to pay and wondered to myself just HTF it cost £xx,000 to get it to a hearing. £86K for the claim against Blacker? It was like shooting at an open goal!
Full SDT decision here - http://www.legalcheek.com/2016/09/sdt-publishes-lo...
Vaud said:
Health grounds, though he won't supply the medical evidence to back the statement. So travel, rather than London per se.
Not so. He did provide it but tried to impose conditions on the Tribunal, namely that the evidence could not be disclosed to the SRA. Unsurprisingly the Tribunal wasn't having any of it: a conclusion with which Mr Justice Warby agreed. See paragraph 11 in the link I posted.
I rather suspect his 'medical condition' is as fanciful as some of the qualifications/honours/titles that he claims to have.
Forget Lord Harley of Counsel: that's a mere bagatelle. Lest we forget, he's the 37th Earl of Dublin. Doff your caps chaps.
Lurking Lawyer said:
Agreed on both counts.
It does seem as if being on the SRA's panel to investigate and prosecute SDT cases is a licence to print money for those firms appointed to it. This isn't the first time I've read an SDT case report, saw how much the defaulter was ordered to pay and wondered to myself just HTF it cost £xx,000 to get it to a hearing. £86K for the claim against Blacker? It was like shooting at an open goal!
Worse still the SDT's form for ordering costs to be paid by cleared Respondents.It does seem as if being on the SRA's panel to investigate and prosecute SDT cases is a licence to print money for those firms appointed to it. This isn't the first time I've read an SDT case report, saw how much the defaulter was ordered to pay and wondered to myself just HTF it cost £xx,000 to get it to a hearing. £86K for the claim against Blacker? It was like shooting at an open goal!
Red Devil said:
Full SDT decision here - http://www.legalcheek.com/2016/09/sdt-publishes-lo...
Just realised I was at school with Mark Warby and his brother!On the subject of the SDT and costs orders, I was quite disturbed to read a report in this week's Law Society Gazette.
It related to a solicitor with Farrer & Co (whose name is usually followed with the soubriquet "The Queen's solicitors) who had been charged with professional misconduct - it arose from the phone hacking litigation, after he suspected that NotW's solicitor and barrister were having a personal relationship and sharing confidential information relating to the case when they shouldn't, and so had a private investigator follow them to gather evidence.
The SDT had to accept that neither of the two allegations of breaches of the code of conduct were proven but nevertheless decided that it was going to order him to pay £20,000 towards the SRA's costs (out of a total of around £100,000 claimed).
Either he breached the Code or he didn't. It's just not on to make sniffy disapproving comments about his conduct but ultimately dismiss the charges, yet still order him to pay some of the other side's costs. Very rum indeed.
It related to a solicitor with Farrer & Co (whose name is usually followed with the soubriquet "The Queen's solicitors) who had been charged with professional misconduct - it arose from the phone hacking litigation, after he suspected that NotW's solicitor and barrister were having a personal relationship and sharing confidential information relating to the case when they shouldn't, and so had a private investigator follow them to gather evidence.
The SDT had to accept that neither of the two allegations of breaches of the code of conduct were proven but nevertheless decided that it was going to order him to pay £20,000 towards the SRA's costs (out of a total of around £100,000 claimed).
Either he breached the Code or he didn't. It's just not on to make sniffy disapproving comments about his conduct but ultimately dismiss the charges, yet still order him to pay some of the other side's costs. Very rum indeed.
In news that will probably surprise few, His Lordship is still refusing to accept that he is beaten and is seemingly going to appeal to the Court of Appeal.....
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/blacker-files-to...
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/blacker-files-to...
La Liga said:
The chap representing him appears to have had a colourful past, including being stood on the wrong side of the dock at crown court for grooming (he wasn't found guilty).
.http://www.legalcheek.com/2012/11/court-hears-how-...
http://charles-thomson.net/court-van-dellen-menu.h...
If the fantasist 'Earl of Dublin' isn't careful he could end up in a sinkhole of his own making like this chap.
Former solicitor Alan Blacker on trial accused of benefit fraud
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/great...
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/great...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff