Source: http://www.windsorchambers.com/reported-cases/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:53:19+00:00

Document:
Julian Smith v BSB (2016) November, Administrative Court, Collins J.
Disciplinary tribunal panel member time expired. Whether unlawful & whether tribunal compliant with ECHR, Art 6, EU Charter, Art 47; whether panel member a de facto judge or whether de facto judge principle unlawful by virtue of Art 14 of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights.
(Judicial review of BSB decision to prosecute a Barrister; “sponsor” Barrister failed to advise BSB Complaints Committee of professional context of Barrister’s actions; Committee did not read Barrister’s full response to complaint before deciding to prosecute him; failure of due process).
(Alleged breaches of Solicitors Accounts Rules; Solicitor a junior partner with no access to the firm’s Accounts; breaches committed by senior partner; SRA adjudicator held junior partner in breach of SARs due to strict liability; whether rule 6 of the SARs imports a presumption of mens rea; meaning of must “ensure” compliance).
(Solicitor’s role in unregulated insurance business).
Kaur v ILEX  EWCA Civ 1168 (Ground-breaking decision of the Court of Appeal on the law of apparent bias and automatic disqualification in disciplinary proceedings; Vice President of ILEX unlawfully sat on disciplinary tribunal; Marc Beaumont, (on Public Access), defeated ILEX, (represented by Leading Counsel), securing the reversal of the decision of 4 previous senior Judges).
GMC v Winehouse (2015) 14th April, Manchester.
(Successfully arguing that the GMC had no jurisdiction to review undertakings offered by a surgeon, due to the effect of s.35D of the Medical Act 1983 and Rule 37A(3)(b) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules, 2004).
(nursing home; allegations of neglect against senior nurse; case part-heard after 2 days with evidence yet to be given; tribunal issued a letter purporting to make a final determination of issue of misconduct and fitness to practise; application by Marc Beaumont to recuse entire panel on grounds of predetermination and apparent bias; application granted).
RICS v Martin Rushton (2017) October; Court of Appeal.
(re-trial at which RICS’ main witnesses failed to appear to be cross-examined; successful application by Marc Beaumont that unless they appear on the next occasion, their evidence shall be inadmissible; charges then withdrawn by RICS).
(successful RICS appeal against finding of improper entry into referral fee arrangement; strike off set aside).
(Judicial review; whether a disciplinary or regulatory decision to prosecute engages Article 8(1) of the ECHR where the accused has been prosecuted by a previous regulator).
(whether land at a school was “playing fields” within the meaning of s. 77 of the School Standards & Framework Act 1998 such that development required the consent of the SSFE).
(Disciplinary tribunal panel member time expired. Whether unlawful & whether tribunal compliant with ECHR, Art 6, EU Charter, Art 47; whether panel member a de facto judge or whether de facto judge principle unlawful by virtue of Art 14 of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights).
(application to European Court of Human Rights; whether violation of presumption of innocence; challenge to refusal of the Secretary of State to grant F compensation under s. 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 arising from his wrongful conviction in 2004 for various sexual offences).
(Drafting an application to the European Court of Human Rights examining the administrative and judicial arrangements in the United Kingdom for dealing with errors in the allocation of judges to the specialist work areas of the High Court of Justice and the extent to which the UK’s purported solution [the “de facto judge principle”] violates Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000) ).
(Judicial review arising from failures of due process in the Bar’s disciplinary arrangements discovered by a report by COIC in 2012; time expired disciplinary judges – whether a tribunal “established by law” under ECHR Art. 6 and Art. 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; whether laid down selection process of disciplinary judges had to be followed at all; whether prosecutor could partake in selection process of disciplinary judges; whether a disciplinary judge could properly receive an undisclosed salary from the prosecutor; whether logjam in Visitorial appeals process caused unlawful delay; whether proper Art. 6 security of tenure when BSB sits on committee (COIC) with the power to remove disciplinary judges from the “pool” at will; whether “discreditable” conduct should be defined).
(School closure; judicial review; Closure Notice failed to show how closure would improve SEN provision for SEN children; Closure Notice held to be invalid; closure decision quashed. Defect I identified will affect closures across England & Wales).
J and B v Governors of H School  Lawtel, 2nd September, Court of Appeal.
(school exclusion, fights and serious injury; bullying of assailant; Governors reinstated excluded child; victim (the bully) sought JR of that decision; Governors capitulated; excluded child arguing that in its discretion court should not order a re-hearing by Governors as alternative remedy and hardship to him as a third party; absence of reasons of Judge below).
London Borough of Islington v Michaelides  Crim LR 843,  Divisional Court.
(Planning, breach of Enforcement Notice, autrefois acquit inapplicable where previous acquittal secured by improperly obtained certificate of lawful development).
(Marc Beaumont acts as an expert on English law in foreign proceedings. In 2017, he advised on the law of frustration of contracts in a dispute in Moscow over a disputed loan of 156 million Euros in the context of the annexation of Crimea by Russia).
(Defence of undue influence with third party claim in negligence against a firm of solicitors; successful London Mediation at which wife of debtor received enough in damages to secure re-housing).
(Security for costs; whether Claimant Company in substance a Defendant and so immune from SFC order).
(Costs; Solicitors Act 1974, statute bills, enforceability of invoices, solicitor’s lien over client funds).
(14 day trial; Construction contract; project management; claims alleging fraudulent misappropriation, deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, dishonest assistance and professional negligence against designers/project managers; claim for an account; all serious allegations against Marc Beaumont’s client dismissed).
(Application to strike out averment of constructive notice in Etridge defence; application successfully opposed by Marc Beaumont).
(Insolvency, transaction at undervalue, transfer of commercial property to pension scheme with in specie contribution, sections 212, 238, 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986, whether Directors’ misfeasance).
(Chauffeur of a celebrity; restraint of trade, whether covenant enforceable, whether damages for “reflected loss” being claimed, whether s. 2 of the Competition Act 1998 applicable, whether an account of profits available in a claim for breach of contract).
Whiteaway Laidlaw Bank v R  11 August, Bankruptcy Registry, Birmingham.
(Insolvency. Successful defence to Petition on the basis of : (a) an arguable breach of section 86C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, (b) triable issues of fraud and (c) a mis-statement in the Petition about security; whether “security” in rule 6.25 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 includes an arguably valueless Legal Charge; whether “running-account credit” can arise by implication where overdraft facilities are extended retrospectively).
(Re-litigation, consumer credit, improper execution, issue estoppel, abuse of process, Johnson v Gore-Wood, limitation period for allegations of improper execution, successful strike-out application).
(Policeman; disciplinary proceedings which were wrongly brought; Policeman mentally ill; wrong diagnosis by Doctors; MPC’s duty of care to policeman; definition of duty of care; whether non-delegable; successfully resisted MPC’s strike-out application).
(Bankruptcy Petition based on agreement to pay tax; allegation by client debtor that agreement procured by threat by HMRC to extend investigation over another 8 years of trading; need for trial; Petition dismissed with costs against HMRC).
(Procurement; NHS Trust; £1 million contract for supply of pressure mattress systems; threatened withdrawal by Trust; I negotiated with the Trust to rescind their withdrawal; settled case within 48 hours of dispute erupting).
(Conflict of laws; supply of biofuel from the USA; service out of the jurisdiction; CPR Part 6 r. 20(5); whether e-mail contract made in England or Tennessee; convenience of forum; material non-disclosure in ex parte application; Proper Law of the contract; Rome Convention).
(Gift of land; presumption of undue influence; whether rebutted by donor’s confession that not placed under any pressure; whether third party transferee of land had constructive notice).
GE Capital Bank Ltd v Rushton & Jenking  1 WLR 899, Court of Appeal.
R (Energy Financing Team Ltd) v Serious Fraud Office, GML International Ltd (Interested Party)  All ER 285, Lawtel 8th August.

References: Art 6
 Art 47
 Art 14
 EWCA 
 Art 6
 Art 47
 Art 14
 Art. 6
 Art. 47
 Art. 6