Law Society Interventions Revisited

Two earlier e-bulletins considered conflicting first instance judgments relating to whether the intervention powers conferred upon the Law Society (the Society) under the Solicitors Act 1974 infringed Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. These judgments were Holder v Law Society (email bulletin dated 16 August 2002) and Wright & Others v Law Society (email bulletin dated 30 October 2002).

The Court of Appeal has recently given judgment in Holder v Law Society, clarifying the position in respect of this issue.

Background

The Society exercised its statutory intervention powers in order to vest Mr Holder's practice monies into its control and require him to deliver practice documents to its agent, on the basis of serious breaches of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules and dishonesty. The Society appealed against the decision of Peter Smith J, who had directed that Mr Holder's claim for a withdrawal of the Society's Notice of Intervention should go to trial.

One of the issues in dispute was whether the intervention involved an interference with Mr Holder's peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 1 of the First Protocol establishes the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions, except in the public interest and subject to conditions provided for by law and the general principles of international law.

Application of the public interest test

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Judge's conclusion that, apart from issues under the Human Rights Act, the intervention of the Society was entirely justified.

In respect of the human rights issue, it was common ground that the Society's intervention involved an interference with Mr Holder's right to peaceful possession. The question was whether the intervention was justified in the public interest.

In the application of the public interest test, Carnwath LJ giving the leading judgment followed the principles laid down by the Strasbourg Court in Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden (1983) 5 EHRR 35, namely that the Court must determine whether a fair balance has been struck between the general interest of the community and the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. He also noted the requirement that there be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised by any measure depriving a person of his possessions...