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.

Comment

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

Cancel