Solicitor, Re Solicitor's Act 1974, No 7 of 2001

When deciding whether to waive a head of the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test, the Law Society must assess the nature and extent of the applicant’s practical experience and qualifications under the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Regulations 1990. It may compare the applicant’s experience with the breadth of the relevant test syllabus to determine whether that experience is an adequate substitute for the competence the test examines. A requirement for supervised practice or a reference from a qualified lawyer is not, by itself, the governing legal test. The decision must be reached independently, fairly and reasonably on all relevant material. Extensive advocacy or tribunal experience may be insufficient where it does not demonstrate the wider range of litigation competence covered by the test.

A qualified Nigerian barrister and solicitor sought admission as a solicitor in England and Wales. His certificate of eligibility required him to pass, among other heads, the litigation head of the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test. He applied for a waiver, relying on advocacy, tribunal, county court, judicial review and other litigation experience.

An Adjudicator refused the waiver. The Chief Adjudicator dismissed his appeal on 12 July 2000, concluding that his experience did not demonstrate the breadth of experience covered by the litigation syllabus. The appellant challenged the approach as legally erroneous, unreasonable, procedurally unfair and indirectly discriminatory. The central issue was whether the refusal was one the Law Society could reasonably and fairly reach on the evidence.

Appeal dismissed. The Master of the Rolls held that the Chief Adjudicator had applied the correct approach under the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Regulations 1990.

1. Regulation 11(1) made passing the relevant test the general requirement, subject to an individual waiver. Regulation 5(3) required the Society, when making the relevant determination, to have regard to the nature and extent of the applicant’s practical experience in the law of England and Wales and to any academic or other qualification. The question was therefore whether the evidence demonstrated experience adequate to justify waiving the litigation head.

2. It was permissible, and sensible, to compare the applicant’s experience with the range of experience required by the litigation syllabus. That comparison assessed whether the experience was a satisfactory substitute for the knowledge and competence tested. It did not introduce an additional or unlawful criterion.

3. The Adjudicator’s reference to supervision and experience in a solicitor’s office did not establish that those matters were mandatory conditions. The Chief Adjudicator considered the appellant’s documentary evidence and account of his experience because he could not provide the usual form of reference.

4. The Chief Adjudicator was not required to mention every item of evidence expressly. The limited High Court experience relied on by the appellant was narrow and largely concerned immigration matters. His substantial tribunal experience and demonstrated ability did not establish the breadth of litigation competence covered by the test.

5. There was no basis for finding partiality, fettering of discretion, procedural unfairness or objective lack of impartiality. The Law Society adjudicators were required to exercise independent judgment, and the refusal was a decision that could reasonably and fairly be reached on the material before them. No order for costs was made.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Chief Adjudicator’s decision dated 12 July 2000, which upheld the Adjudicator’s refusal dated 7 June 2000 to waive the litigation head of the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test. Appeal dismissed.