Intermediate findings of dishonesty made in the course of determining disciplinary complaints that themselves allege dishonesty need not be the subject of specific charges; the broader principle requiring fraud to be distinctly pleaded applies only to elements of the cause of action, not to intermediate findings of fact. The [name withheld] v [name withheld] principle cannot be used to infer that untendered evidence would have been damaging to the party not calling the evidence, nor can it convert speculation into inference. In disciplinary proceedings, the penalty is concerned with the protection of the public and the integrity of the justice system, not punishment, and a practitioner's failure to give evidence cannot fill gaps in the evidence on either liability or penalty.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.