• Application 11722-2017
  • Hearing 5 January 2018
  • Reasons 23 January 2018

The SDT refused the applicant’s application for revocation of a section 43 order made on 4 September 2012 in case number 10795/2011.

The section 43 order had been made after the applicant had admitted allegations relating to his involvement in conveyancing transactions which bore hallmarks of mortgage fraud.

The difficulties which the applicant said he had had in obtaining employment in law had been noted. However, he had not actually made an application for permission to be employed; it was not a situation in which the respondent had repeatedly rejected applications for permission.

The applicant would require close supervision in a law firm, at least initially. If he could complete a period of properly supervised and managed work in an appropriate firm, it might then be appropriate to revoke the section 43 order. The applicant did not propose to work in conveyancing and the public should have the reassurance that he would not do so.

The last time the applicant had worked in a law firm he had been caught up in improper transactions. He had no track record of working in a law firm to show that the public would be properly protected in the future.

It was appropriate to leave the section 43 order in place, to protect the public and the reputation of those who provide legal services. If the applicant could build up proper experience under supervision, it might be that the respondent would not oppose any future application to revoke the section 43 order but, at the present stage, it was reasonable for the respondent to oppose it.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs of £500.