Ahmed v The Inns' Conduct Committee

An interim injunction requires a serious question to be tried. Where professional training regulations make membership of an Inn an entry condition, a student who has not obtained membership cannot insist on continuing the course while an admission appeal remains pending. Even if a serious question exists, the court must consider whether damages are adequate and where the balance of convenience lies. The risk of undermining the regulatory requirement may decisively weigh against relief.

The applicant sought an interim injunction suspending the City Law School’s decision to de-register him from the Bar Professional Training Course. The decision followed the refusal by the Inner Temple, after referral to the Inns’ Conduct Committee, to admit him because he was not then a fit and proper person to become a practising barrister. His appeal to the Bar Standards Board remained unresolved.

He proposed claims in breach of contract and judicial review, alleging that the school had misapplied its Academic Regulations. The central issue was whether there was a serious question to be tried concerning the school’s power to de-register him and, if so, whether interim relief should be granted.

The application for an interim injunction was refused.

1. The court applied the approach in American Cyanomid Co v Ethicon [1975] AC 396: whether there was a serious question to be tried, whether damages were an adequate remedy, and where the balance of convenience lay.
2. The Bar Training Regulations and BPTC Academic Regulations imposed a fundamental requirement that a person must be a member of an Inn before commencing the vocational stage. The applicant knew that his application had been rejected before seeking enrolment.
3. Academic Regulation 3.2.2 did not give a student who had failed to obtain Inn membership an unconditional right to remain on the course merely because it stated that the student would be asked to leave. The proposed contractual claims therefore disclosed no serious question to be tried.
4. The proposed judicial review grounds were not arguable on the material before the court. Applications for judicial review and accompanying interim relief must be commenced in the Administrative Court.
5. In any event, damages would have been adequate and the balance of convenience plainly favoured refusal. Granting relief risked allowing completion of regulated training without admission to an Inn.

The application was refused.

This was an interim application in the High Court. It was first pursued ex parte before Lindblom J on 31 October 2012, when it was adjourned to an inter partes hearing. Mr Justice Sweeney heard the application on 7 November 2012 and refused it on 12 November 2012, giving reasons in the judgment dated 19 November 2012.