header-logo header-logo

Barrister—Pupillage—Exemption from pupillage

15 October 2009
Issue: 7389 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Doegar v The Bar Standards Board, [2009] EWHC 2231 (Admin),[2009] All ER (D) 70 (Oct)

Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court (London), Sullivan LJ, 31 Jul 2009

The starting point regarding the jurisdiction of the vistors’ jurisdiction under the Consolidated Regulations of the Court and the General Counsel of the Bar (the Regulations) was that it was an appellate one, and if the first instance hearing has been ineffective for procedural reasons, the appropriate course is usually to remit the matter.

The appellant appeared in person. Paul Parker for the respondent.
The appellant applied to be exempt from his pupillage requirements.

A panel of the Qualifications Committee of the Bar Standards Board decided to allow him a three-month reduction in each of the six months practising and non-practising parts of his pupillage.

On appeal the decision was upheld by the committee in a letter of March 2007. The appellant appealed. The committee accepted that there had been procedural unfairness to the appellant, and that the decision should be set aside.

The remaining questions were:

(i) whether his application

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
back-to-top-scroll