England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR JUSTICE TURNER)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 6th June 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN: The applicant is thirty-seven. He is of Sudanese British origin. He now wishes to become a solicitor. Before he can embark, however, upon the Common Professional Examination, which is one of the necessary steps to be fulfilled before his ambition could be achieved, he needs to satisfy the requirements of regulation 10 of the Law Society's Training Regulations 1990.
2. So far as presently relevant, paragraph 10(1) of those regulations provides that "To be an eligible student a person must" either (i) hold a degree conferred by a UK and Republic of Ireland university, or (ii) hold a degree conferred by a university outside of the UK and the Republic of Ireland which the Law Society considers to be at least of an equivalent standard, or:

"(iii) be accepted by the Society for admission as a mature student; the applicant for such acceptance must:

(a) have had considerable experience or shown exceptional ability in an academic, professional, business or administrative field;

(b) have attained the age of 25 years;

(c) have attained such standard of general education as the Society may consider sufficient;

(d) have satisfied the Society as to character and suitability to become a solicitor; and

(e) have a good knowledge of written and spoken English."

3. Regulation 10(2) provides:

"In exceptional circumstances notified to and accepted as such by the Master of the Rolls the Society may accept such other evidence of academic eligibility as it thinks fit in the case of a person who completes a course of study for a degree at an institution referred to in paragraphs (i) and (ii)."

4. The applicant has no degree from any university and accordingly needs to be accepted under 10(1)(iii) as a mature student for which purpose he requires from the Law Society what is known as a Certificate of Academic Standing. The applicant applied to the Law Society for such a certificate and he was refused. He appealed to the adjudicator and was refused again. The adjudicator's decision was conveyed by letter from the Law Society dated 31st August 2000 in these terms:

"1. I disallow Mr Gaisiance's appeal because he has failed to satisfy the criteria under the Training Regulations 1990, as amended, for the issue to him of a Certificate of Academic Standing.

2. In particular he has failed to show considerable experience or shown exceptional ability in an academic, professional business or administrative field, nor has he attained such standard of general education as the Law Society may consider sufficient, that is to say at least two 'A' Level passes which would enable a student to gain a place on a full-time LLB course.

3. The work experience and educational achievements displayed by Mr Gaisiance fall well short of the level required."

5. The applicant was then told by the Law Society that he could appeal further to the Master of the Rolls. As, however, the Master of the Rolls eventually came to point out in his judgment of 23rd November 2000, the applicant had been misinformed as to that. The Master of the Rolls' jurisdiction in this particular area arises solely under regulation 10(2), which I have already set out, and it relates solely to those who have a university degree. The Master of the Rolls has no jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Law Society as to the qualifications of a mature student.
6. Mr Gaisiance seeks to rely, amongst others, on regulation 6(4), but the Master of the Rolls' jurisdiction under that regulation goes solely to the question of "enrolment", not to "the academic stage of training".
7. The Master of the Rolls, nevertheless, considered the applicant's case on the merits and reached the conclusion that even if he had been exercising a valid jurisdiction he would not have been able to fault the conclusion reached by the adjudicator. Having quoted the criteria related in regulation 10(1)(iii)(a) to (d) inclusive, the Master of the Rolls said this:

"The Law Society and the Adjudicator were not satisfied that the applicant fulfilled those criteria because he had not attained the requisite standard of general education. He did not have 'A' level qualifications, which they would normally require. More pertinently, they were not satisfied that he had considerable experience, or shown exceptional ability, in an academic, professional business or administrative field."

8. At that point the applicant applied for permission to apply for judicial review of the decisions of both the Master of the Rolls and the Law Society. His application came initially on the documents before Elias J who, on 24th January 2001, refused it in these terms:

"(1) The First Defendant [MR] plainly has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Accordingly this complaint is bound to fail in law.

(2) The Second Defendant [the Law Society] was entitled to reach the conclusion it did. There is no error of law identified."

9. The applicant then renewed his application for oral hearing before Turner J on 12th February 2001, and again he was refused permission to pursue judicial review. Turner J concluded after a careful and reasonably full judgment "that it is quite plain that this claim would fail".
10. The applicant nevertheless now seeks permission to appeal to this Court against that order. He refers me to a variety of regulations and not least to the Master of the Rolls (Appeals and Applications) Regulations 1991, and by these he contends that the Master of the Rolls has in fact a broad general discretion over this whole area. With the best will in the world that is not a submission that I can accept. Nothing in those 1991 regulations to my mind extends the Master of the Rolls' discretion under regulation 10(2) of the 1990 regulations which is the only source of his power with regard to part 3 of the 1990 regulations – "the academic stage of training".
11. In my judgment there is nothing in any of the applicant's arguments. The Master of the Rolls was entirely right to regard himself as lacking jurisdiction on this narrow issue, and for their part the Law Society on the questions of fact before them were entitled to reach the conclusion they did under Regulation 10(1)(iii). I must, in the result, refuse this application.
(Application for permission to appeal refused)