CH v DX LCRO 296 / 2012 (10 October 2013) [pdf, 100 KB]
...did, then this experience would be enough to ensure that he paid extra attention to complying with the Rules. [32] That presupposes that the Rules were not knowingly breached or blatantly ignored by Mr CH. In this regard Mr CH objected to the statements by the Standards Committee in its June 2012 determination that he had acted in this way. He accepted the findings and Orders of the Committee but sought to have all references to any knowing breach or blatant ignoring of the Rules...