Law Society v Master of the Rolls & Anor

Paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 14 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 authorises conditions imposed when a foreign lawyer’s registration is initially entered in the register. It does not confer a general power to impose conditions at any later time. The interpretation follows from the express powers concerning suspension, reinstatement and revival, the related appeal provisions, and the statutory scheme regulating solicitors and registered foreign lawyers. The Interpretation Act 1978 does not extend a power stated to arise at a specific time into a continuing power. Any wider regulatory power must be supplied by Parliament or the Executive under the statutory mechanism, rather than inferred from an alleged lacuna.

The Law Society imposed conditions on the registration of a registered foreign lawyer following concerns arising from his former association with a London practice. He appealed to the Master of the Rolls under paragraph 14 of Schedule 14 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The Master of the Rolls construed paragraph 2(3), which provides that registration may be made subject to conditions, as referring to the initial entry in the register. The Law Society sought judicial review of that construction, contending that the provision authorised conditions to be imposed on an existing registration whenever appropriate. The central issue was the proper meaning and scope of paragraph 2(3).

1. Application refused. The Divisional Court agreed with the Master of the Rolls that paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 14 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 concerns the making of the initial entry in the register. It does not give the Law Society a general power to impose conditions on an existing registration.
2. The statutory language was ambiguous and had to be read with the scheme as a whole. Paragraphs 12(2) and 13 expressly empower the Society to impose conditions when suspension is terminated or registration is revived. Those provisions would be unnecessary if paragraph 2(3) created a continuing power. Paragraph 14(1)(d), by referring specifically to conditions under paragraphs 2(3), 12(2) and 13, reinforced that conclusion.
3. Paragraph 14(2), which links the appeal period to notification of the Society’s decision on an application, was also more consistent with conditions imposed on an application for initial registration or renewal than with an unrestricted power exercisable whenever the Society had concerns.
4. Section 12(1) of the Interpretation Act 1978 did not assist. It permits a power to be exercised from time to time where the power exists, but does not create authority to exercise a power at times outside those specified by the enactment.
5. The wider regulatory context supported a circumscribed power. Parliament had carefully defined the circumstances in which conditions could be imposed on solicitors under the Solicitors Act 1974. No unrestricted power over registered foreign lawyers should be inferred. The resulting gap in regulation did not justify rewriting paragraph 2(3), particularly since section 89(5) provided a statutory route for extending relevant regulatory provisions to foreign lawyers.

The judgment states that the Law Society’s application for judicial review was the first such application brought by it against a decision of the Master of the Rolls under Schedule 14. The Divisional Court refused the application and upheld the Master of the Rolls’ construction of paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 14 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.