RB v SCX LCRO 92/2014 (11 August 2014) [pdf, 75 KB]
...s 213(2) of the Act to provide reasons for its decisions. [20] The role of this Office, when considering a review of a decision to lay charges against a practitioner before the Disciplinary Tribunal was the subject of comment by the Court of Appeal in Orlov. 3 In the first instance, the Court accepted that “[t]here is now oversight of the referral decision by the independent LCRO”.4 [21] In its judgment the Court also found there was no threshold test to meet before matters co...