Linda Lu v Solicitors Regulation Authority

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Kerr
Judgment Date06 July 2022
Neutral Citation[2022] EWHC 1729 (Admin)
Docket NumberCase No: CO/1093/2021
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
5 cases
  • Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v George Fahim Sa'id
    • United Kingdom
    • King's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 25 June 2024
    ...in it. 2. Decisions on anonymity are decisions against which an appeal lies under s 49(5) of the Solicitors Act 1974 ( Lu v SRA [2022] EWHC 1729 (Admin) at ¶66 – 69). The test is the usual test on appeal pursuant to CPR r 52.21(3). An appeal court will allow an appeal where the decision of......
  • Damilare Ajao v 1) Commerzbank AG 2) Mr Lars Vogelmann 3) Ms Hope Jackson 4) Mr Gary Booth 5) Ms Yogita Mehta 6) Q
    • United Kingdom
    • Employment Appeal Tribunal
    • Invalid date
    ...more widely than the general law; and they may be too eagerly invoked, as we saw recently in Lu v. Solicitors’ Regulation Authority [2022] EWHC 1729 (Admin). 34. In the present case, there are four relevant strands of legislative and judicial authority of potential relevance to the two priv......
  • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2022-12-09, [2023] UKUT 00074 (IAC) (YSA (Anonymity of Barristers))
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 9 December 2022
    ...it is always the restriction, not the publication, that requires to be justified. See Lu v Solicitors’ Regulation Authority [2022] EWHC 1729 (Admin) at The process of intense focus has to be conducted in the context of the prospective interferences identified. The question of necessity will......
  • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2022-12-09, PA/00000/0000
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 9 December 2022
    ...it is always the restriction, not the publication, that requires to be justified. See Lu v Solicitors’ Regulation Authority [2022] EWHC 1729 (Admin) at The process of intense focus has to be conducted in the context of the prospective interferences identified. The question of necessity will......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT