Regina -v- The Master of the Rolls & Another

The Master of the Rolls’ jurisdiction under regulation 10(2) of the Law Society’s Training Regulations 1990 is confined to exceptional cases involving alternative evidence of academic eligibility from a person who has completed a degree course at a qualifying institution. It does not confer a general power to review the Law Society’s assessment of whether a non-graduate qualifies as a mature student under regulation 10(1)(iii). A jurisdiction conferred by regulation 6(4) concerning enrolment does not extend to the academic stage of training. Where the Law Society applies the relevant mature-student criteria and reaches a conclusion open on the facts, judicial review is unavailable.

The applicant, who had no university degree, sought a Certificate of Academic Standing from the Law Society so that he could proceed towards qualification as a solicitor. The Law Society and its adjudicator refused his application under regulation 10(1)(iii), finding that he had not demonstrated the required experience, exceptional ability or standard of general education.

The applicant was incorrectly told that he could appeal to the Master of the Rolls. The Master of the Rolls nevertheless considered the merits and concluded that the decision could not be faulted, while determining that he had no jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. Elias J refused permission for judicial review on the papers, and Turner J refused it after an oral hearing. The central issue was whether the Master of the Rolls had a wider power to review the Law Society’s decision.

1. Application refused. Lord Justice Simon Brown refused permission to appeal against Turner J’s refusal of permission to pursue judicial review.
2. The Master of the Rolls’ power in this area arose solely under regulation 10(2) of the Law Society’s Training Regulations 1990. That provision concerned exceptional cases involving other evidence of academic eligibility from a person who had completed a degree course at a qualifying institution. It did not extend to reviewing the Law Society’s decision on whether a person without a degree should be accepted as a mature student under regulation 10(1)(iii).
3. Regulation 6(4) did not assist the applicant. The Master of the Rolls’ jurisdiction under that provision related to enrolment, not to the academic stage of training.
4. The Master of the Rolls (Appeals and Applications) Regulations 1991 did not enlarge the discretion conferred by regulation 10(2) in relation to part 3 of the 1990 Regulations.
5. The Law Society and adjudicator were entitled, on the facts, to conclude that the applicant had not shown considerable experience or exceptional ability in the specified fields and had not attained the required standard of general education. The Master of the Rolls was therefore right to regard himself as lacking jurisdiction, and the Law Society’s factual conclusion disclosed no error of law.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal refused.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Turner J refused permission to pursue judicial review on 12 February 2001.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Elias J refused permission on the papers on 24 January 2001.