RE:- Section 11 (1) (2) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and Statutory Instrument 1999 No 1125 and Wasted Costs Order January 1994 against Legal Representatives

The request was partially successful.

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Council of the Inns of Court,

I, Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee do hereby make a request that:-

1) You do have Section 11 (1) (2) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and Statutory Instrument 1999 No 1225 The Lay Representative Rights of Audience Small claims.

2) You do have the decision made in the Court of Appeal in January 1994, where there were Six Appeals with regards to Wasted Costs Order against Legal Representative.

3) Do you take into account of the Interpretation Act 1978 Section 3, 16, 21 and Schedule 1 Interpretation. "Colony" means any part of Her Majesty's Dominions outside the British Islands Except:-
(a) countries having fully responsible status within the Commonwealth.
(b)
(c) Associated States

4. Do you take into account of Section 3 (7) (8) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 Treaties signed at the United Nations such as The International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights signed at the United Nations.

5. Litigants in Persons Act 1975, do you allow the right to Appeal against the decision of the Bar Standards Board/Bar Council for refusing to uphold the complaint against barristers for having misled the Court or Tribunal from relying on Repealed Parliaments Acts or Statutory Instruments.

Yours faithfully,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Hayley Dawes, Council of the Inns of Court

Hi,

 

I am now out of the office until Monday 12 February and will respond to
your query on my return. Thank you for your patience.

 

Kind regards,

 

Hayley

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not read, copy or
distribute this message or any files transmitted with it. If you have
received this in error, please notify the sender (using the Reply option
in your email software) and then delete it.

[1]The Council of the Inns of Court (COIC) is a Company Limited by
Guarantee. Company number: 8804708 and Registered Charity No. 1155640.

COIC and its subsidiary organisations: [2]The Inns of Court College of
Advocacy (ICCA) and [3]the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service (BTAS),
have their Registered Office at: 9 Gray’s Inn Square, London WC1R 5JD.

Please consider the environment and don’t print this email, unless it’s
absolutely necessary.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.coic.org.uk/
2. http://www.icca.ac.uk/
3. http://www.tbtas.org.uk/

Hayley Dawes, Council of the Inns of Court

Dear Mr Bhamjee,

Thank you for your email.

We confirm receipt of your request and are looking into the matter for you.

Kind regards,

Hayley

Hayley Dawes
PA to Director
The Council of the Inns of Court (COIC)
020 7822 0762

show quoted sections

Andy Russell,

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for your email.

1)-4) as to your first four questions, I can assure you that Bar Tribunals have access to and apply the current law in all their dealings;

5) if we have interpreted your question correctly, there is no right of appeal to the Bar Tribunal & Adjudication Service (BTAS) in circumstances where the Bar Standards Board decide not to pursue a complaint against a practitioner. There is the right to appeal to BTAS in circumstances where the BSB have imposed an administrative sanction. Please see part 5 'Enforcement' of the BSB Handbook which can be found at: https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/med...

I hope this information is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Russell

Andy Russell | Registrar
The Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service (BTAS)
9 Gray's Inn Square, London WC1R 5JD
0203 432 7346 | [email address]
Part of the Council of the Inns of Court, Company Limited by Guarantee – No. 8804708 | Charity No. 1155640

show quoted sections

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Dear Council of the Inns of Court,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Council of the Inns of Court's handling of my FOI request 'RE:- Section 11 (1) (2) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and Statutory Instrument 1999 No 1125 and Wasted Costs Order January 1994 against Legal Representatives'.

I request your attention that there is no provision that a Litigant in Person who has made a complaint to the Bar Council or the Bar Standards Board against any Barrister for having misled the Court and who has obtained his or Her Fees to be cancelled, that the Person can appeal to the Inns Courts, as it is only the Barrister who can appeal against the decision made. Since the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunals does allow any Person to make a complaint to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for the Solicitor to answer the allegations.

You do have Schedule 7 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 which does repeal many other Statutory Acts, Since the Supreme Court of Jurisdiction and Consolidation Act 1925 the whole Act had been repealed, It does amount to misleading the Court and obtaining his or her Fees by Deception contrary to the Fraud Act 2006, whilst the Fraud Act 2006 has not been mentioned.

Section 11 (a) (b) of the Human Rights Act 1998, It is open for any Person to rely on the Convention Treaties in any Part of the United Kingdom, this does include before the Inns Court, Even if the Court Order drawn and sealed on the 25th October 2000 before than Mr Justice Scot Baker had not been endorsed.

The Electronic Communication Act 2000 Section 7, Since Service of Documents by Fax or Email are admissible as evidence without further proof on the defendant's Legal Representative, There are Solicitors and Barristers who are funded by the Insurance Companies they do waste more time of the Courts and they do intimidate and Directly or Indirectly discriminate Litigant in Persons.
There is the Judgment given in the Court of Appeal on the 14th December 1998 and than in the House of Lords on the 20th July 2000 in Arthur J S Hall versus Simmons where it was Ordered that Advocates have no Immunity whether Civil or Criminal Proceedings...

There is the House of Lords Judgment in Quazi V Quazi which had been provided to the Bar Council and to the Courts, Since the Family Law Act 1986 Part 3 Declaration of Marital Status did apply which had the Provisions of the HM Attorney General under Section 59 (1) (2).
This was in force from the 4th April 1988, whilst Section 55 (3) of the Family Law Act 1986 applied from the year 2000, as other Barristers are not parties to the Dissolve Marriage in Lusaka Republic of Zambia,

This does amount to a serious Offence of Treason against the Constitution of the Republic of Zambia, and Section 3 (7) (8) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. As treaties signed at the United Nations General Assembly can be relied upon before any Court or Tribunal.

The Costs for Litigants in Person is also direct or Indirect Discrimination,,, when the Fees for the Barristers and QC Barristers are much higher than what is allowed for Litigants in Person, as I believe that No Person on this World is Superior than the All-Mighty Allah (God) where there is a Breach of the Oath of Office, where the Barristers can't take away the Independence which had been given by an Order in Council to many commonwealth Countries.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

Yours faithfully,

Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee

Andy Russell,

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email. I hope the following further information addresses your request.

The Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service (BTAS) organises and administers independent hearings for Bar Tribunals under the terms of a Service Agreement with the Bar's Regulator, the Bar Standards Board (BSB). BTAS has no powers to investigate or charge barristers suspected of misconduct, which is solely the BSB's responsibility. Similarly, all BTAS hearings are conducted in accordance with regulations set out by the BSB. This is very different from the powers of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal which is constituted as a Statutory Tribunal under Section 46 of The Solicitors Act 1974.

If you wish to challenge a decision by the BSB not to investigate a barrister's conduct, you should raise this with them in the first instance, and if you are still not satisfied you may wish to consider approaching the Legal Ombudsman (http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/).

Yours sincerely,

Andy Russell

Andy Russell | Registrar
The Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service (BTAS)
9 Gray's Inn Square, London WC1R 5JD
0203 432 7346 | [email address]
Part of the Council of the Inns of Court, Company Limited by Guarantee – No. 8804708 | Charity No. 1155640

show quoted sections

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org