Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.


I must be toughening up.

I would appeal this decision. As it stands any disappointed aspirant can have a lengthy and expensive hearing.

The legal/regulatory basis is clear.

There is no right to be admitted as a solicitor just because you've jumped through a few hoops.

A CCJ raises a presumption of financial incompetence - unless suitably explained - with the probability of rejection.

Incorrectly / falsely denying a CCJ raises a presumption of dishonesty - with a greater probability of rejection unless the reasons are exceptional.

I don't think that they were disputed.

There seems to be no right to an oral hearing. As the result is quasi judicial I assume that it has to be Wednesbury reasonable. It might be susceptible to judicial review - a tougher ask than the route taken.

Here, the closely and carefully analysed facts set out in the judgment (and Mr Hall, I don't think the judgment too long on the facts or the law - the CofA is often critical of short gap filled judgments) are devastating.

The judge was obviously concerned at a paper trial - as any trial lawyer would. He was kinder than I would have been because as I read it, the SRA decision - which seems to have been carefully investigated - was inevitable - multiply explained financial incompetence and dishonest cover up - a double whammy.

Your details