A Solicitor, Re

An applicant seeking exemption from a head of the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test must satisfy the regulator about the nature and extent of relevant practical experience, not merely its duration. Guidelines indicating that approximately two to three years’ experience would normally be needed cannot override the governing Regulations or reduce the assessment to a time requirement. The applicant must provide sufficiently detailed evidence of experience in the matters covered by the relevant head, including conveyancing, wills and probate for the property head. General references, partnership status and length of practice are insufficient without evidence of the quality and scope of the work. An interview conducted to clarify documentary evidence is not thereby an oral examination. A professional regulatory appeal of this kind should ordinarily be heard in public, with private hearings reserved for rare cases.

Mr Kanjoo, a Pakistani advocate and registered foreign lawyer, applied under the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Regulations 1990 for exemption from the property head of the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test. The SRA adjudicator refused the application because the evidence did not sufficiently establish the nature and extent of his relevant practical experience. The SRA Review Panel upheld that decision.

Mr Kanjoo appealed to the Court of Appeal. He argued that the guidance required only two to three years’ experience, that the SRA had wrongly demanded detailed evidence, that his references and partnership experience were sufficient, and that the Review Panel had subjected him to an oral examination. The central issues were the proper interpretation of the Regulations and guidance, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the fairness of the review process.

1. Preliminary matters. The court proceeded in the appellant’s absence because there was sufficient evidence that he knew of the hearing. Applying the general principle identified in L v The Law Society (No 13 of 2008) [2008] EWCA Civ 811, the hearing was held in public. A hearing of this kind should be private only in a rare case, and no such case was established.
2. Applicable legal test. Regulation 5(3) of the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Regulations 1990 required the SRA to take account of the nature and extent of the applicant’s practical experience in the law of England and Wales when making a determination under Regulations 6 to 15. An application for a waiver from the property head was made under Regulation 11(1). The SRA therefore had to assess the substance and scope of the experience, rather than its length alone.
3. The 1990 Exemption Guidelines were guidance only and could not take precedence over the Regulations. Their reference to approximately two to three years’ relevant experience indicated the period of experience normally expected to be presented; it did not create a minimum-duration entitlement to exemption. Experience as a partner in English firms was not, by itself, sufficient.
4. An applicant seeking exemption from the property head had to provide evidence of sufficient experience in the matters covered by that head, namely conveyancing, wills and probate. The SRA was entitled to consider the documentary evidence and the applicant’s answers explaining it. The Review Panel’s interview was not an oral examination because it involved no questions testing legal knowledge.
5. The references and statement of experience were general and lacked adequate detail about the number, type, nature and extent of the work. The oral answers likewise failed to demonstrate sufficiently detailed practical experience. The SRA had not erred in refusing the exemption. The appeal was dismissed. A future application could be supported by fuller evidence, or the appellant could take the examination.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal from the SRA’s refusal of exemption, upheld by its Review Panel, was dismissed. The judgment does not give a citation for a separate lower-court judgment.