John Michael Malins V Solicitors Regulation Authority Case Study

Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:

Provided Case 09-3, we, Group 7 have dutifully researched the topic, using resources at our disposal to formulate a consistent, clear and legal response. The following submission outlines the case, our conclusions with supporting evidence and the accounting issues present in the subject.

Clegg case is the most recent and instructive dissertation on this vexed issue. The presiding judge, Justice Hoeben, referred to the previous case of Kilpatrick. There Foster J indicated that the obligations of the Tribunal are clearly satisfied if, in approaching the question of excessiveness, it has regard to matters in paragraphs (a) and following, in

The majority opinion undermined the parol evidence rule, rendered suspect instruments of conveyance absolute on their face, materially lessened the reliance which might be placed upon written instruments, and opened the door to new technique of defrauding

The Commission on the date of April 8, 2011 announced to the Tribunal and the alleged parties that is would not be involved in the hearing directly. They enclosed documentation and forwarded it to both parties concerning the information about legal council should they have any questions. A mediation date was set shortly after on April 19, 2011. At this point the Tribunal uses a courier service to contact all parties involved. This requires the recipient to sign for the documents being delivered. This presented an issue for the complainant from the beginning. The courier has history saved to record when a delivery is attempted and is either successful or unsuccessful. Throughout the entirety of this case, Labelle was unable to be contacted on over 5 attempts by the courier service.

Cases: A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 71; [2006] 2 A.C. 221 (HL) A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56;

The Different Ways in Which Unsatisfactory Work and Behaviour by a Barrister and a Solicitor Can be Dealt With

Both sides began presenting their information to the hearing officer. When it was our solicitor’s turn to speak his lack of preparation was obvious. He left out several pertinent details about Allan’s employment with the company and the events leading up to his being fired. I tried to quietly remind him of what he was forgetting and was quickly reprimanded by the hearing officer. After that, I sat quietly until the questions by the hearing officer were directed to me; I was careful to respond with only what was asked of

Another point of notable importance in this case is the articulation of a logical connection between the controversial matters. Neither the Act, nor the Code explicitly requires a practitioner to consider the implication of impending investigations of the administration prior to accepting an appointment. Honourable Justice Davies had regard to the concept referred to in Accord Pacific Holdings Pty Limited v Gleeson in which it was emphasised that the apprehension of a lack of independence and

there are exceptions. Of course there are a select few people somewhere in this country that are

Mr Crewe has acted unethically, knowingly that Crewe Sharp Pty Ltd was facing financial uncertainty; however he continued to operate even while the company was insolvent. Published within s 180-183 of the Corporations Act 2001,

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

The issues were illustrated in 2012 in the case of Haulotte Australia Pty Limited v All Areas Rentals Pty Limited whereby the liquidator was required to investigate actions undertaken by the referrer prior to liquidation, and accordingly was removed due to the inability to maintain the required appearance of independence. Further to this in the case of Lehane J observed in Wood v Targett that;

I well remember two men who lived in our part of the county when I was a boy. One was rich (at least we thought he was) and the other was a share-cropper. One day the rich man drove by in a new automobile and the other said, “There goes a dishonest man.” And he may have been; I don’t know, but the idea was, “I’m honest and I don’t have a new automobile and so that means that he is dishonest.” But that is not necessarily so.

An applicant’s single act of misconduct can be sufficient to establish moral turpitude if it involved dishonesty and deceit. In Bernstein, Hayes Bernstein (“Bernstein”) applied for admission to the bar and was denied based on a pattern of moral turpitude, involving a divorce action where he forged his ex wife’s name on a check. Bernstein v. Comm. of Bar Exam’rs, 443 P.2d 570, 572. The court held that the bar applicant had engaged in moral turpitude based on deceit and dishonesty