The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission isn’t required to determine if the conditions of a lawyer’s document notes are agreed by means of a complainer before reaching a determination on the admissibility of a complaint, an estimate at the Court of Session has mastered.
The court heard that the company had informed Ms Oliphant in regard to an employment law issue and had an ET1 form on her behalf. She noticed that some points were lost, but filed the form as drafted into the employment tribunal.
The employment judge asked further and better particulars of claim by the offender, which were later submitted, however at a pre-hearing review the judge reasoned that candidate had sought”to present claims, none of which was previously pled”.
In an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal where the applicant was represented by Muir Myles Laverty, the EAT concluded that since the issues weren’t known from the ET1 form without excuse for its new things being increased late was granted, the employment tribunal didn’t err in law enforcement and had been entitled in the exercise of its own discretion to deny change.
The next attorneys chose on behalf of this candidate into the SLCC, speaking to numerous matters in connection to the actions/inactions of the first lawyers who had acted for the offender, specifically the ET1 form was incompetently framed because of”insufficient advice”, which the company”failed to convey efficiently” with the applicant in notifying her various heads of claim comprised in her form.
On the other hand, the judge mentioned that the floor of appeal in respect of which leave to appeal has been hunted made no reference to anything aside from a general criticism about the custom of the SLCC concerning file notes, which counsel for the applicant made it clear there was no entry that the document notes didn’t signify real contemporaneous records.
Lady Clark explained:”The criticism appeared to be that the offender, if she was requested by SLCC for her remarks before the conclusion, might happen to be in a position to provide advice to describe the document notes or give a fuller or different context.
“Counsel submitted that this could have informed that the SLCC and (in a sense which was not explained) could have influenced the decision‑making of this SLCC in favour of the offender.”
“I was not able to comprehend how it could be argued that the conclusion of the SLCC could, could or should have been different if the SLCC had determined whether the document notes are agreed from the complainer, before reaching that conclusion,” she explained.
In a further entry that went beyond the conditions of the floor for leave to appeal, counsel for the applicant also criticised the process adopted by the SLCC, on the premise that a letter from the initial attorneys describing the document should have been supplied to the candidate for comment before the conclusion.
On the other hand, the judge wasn’t convinced that the SLCC were below any obligation to move in the way ahead.
Offering her opinion, Lady Clark explained:”It wasn’t hard to complete in this case that even with an extremely low test the ground of appeal doesn’t have any real possibility of succeeding. There appears to be simply overall assertion that in this situation there was unfair process in the way specified in the floor of appeal.
“There wasn’t any base in the entry to support a decision which the allegedly unfair process negatively influenced the candidate or the results of the decision-making in regard to the particular grounds of criticism refused by the applicant”