The Legal Services Regulatory Authority v Sallabi (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion records the decision of Judge Barniville on an application by Company A under section 35 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 (the "2015 Act") against the Respondent. Company A sought orders (a) prohibiting the Respondent from providing legal services in The State unless and until he has an approved professional indemnity insurance policy complying with the Professional Indemnity Insurance for Barristers Regulations 2024 (S.I. No. 490 of 2024) (the "2024 Regulations"), (b) prohibiting the Respondent from holding himself out as a practising barrister entitled to provide legal services in The State unless and until he has such an approved policy, and (c) requiring production of proof of such a policy before providing legal services in The State.

The application was first returnable on 16 February 2026; interlocutory orders and directions were made pending the adjourned hearing. The Respondent gave undertakings not to practise pending the substantive hearing, which was listed for 28–29 April 2026. The Judge delivered a reserved decision with reasons announced 21 May 2026 and indicated a full written judgment would follow.

Relevant factual background included that the Respondent qualified as a Barrister-at-Law in October 2023 and remains on the roll of practising barristers in The State. He held a professional indemnity policy arranged by Company B and issued by Company C (an Irish entity and subsequently a branch of a foreign company) until end-April 2025 ("the Zurich policy"). He thereafter relied on a policy issued to members of a foreign Bar association ("the Brussels Bar policy") underwritten by Company D and Company E, and claimed registration with the Brussels Bar and establishment in Country B in early 2025. Company A considered the Brussels Bar policy did not cover the Respondent's provision of legal services in The State and did not comply with the 2015 Act and the 2024 Regulations.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Company A is entitled to orders under s.35(1)(a) of the 2015 Act prohibiting the Respondent from providing legal services in The State and from holding himself out as a practising barrister unless he has an approved professional indemnity insurance policy complying with the 2015 Act and the 2024 Regulations.
2. Whether the Brussels Bar policy relied on by the Respondent provides an indemnity for legal services he provides in The State and whether it complies with Regulation 12(1) and Regulation 14 of the 2024 Regulations.
3. Whether the Respondent may rely on EU free movement rights (Treaty, Lawyers' Establishment Directive 98/5/EC, Lawyers' Services Directive 77/249/EEC) to avoid compliance with the 2015 Act and the 2024 Regulations when providing legal services in The State.
4. Whether the proceedings under s.35 are properly brought and justiciable notwithstanding a separate misconduct complaint against the Respondent under Part 6 of the 2015 Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments (Company A)

• The Brussels Bar policy does not, on its proper interpretation, provide cover for legal services provided by the Respondent in The State and fails to satisfy requirements of the 2015 Act and the 2024 Regulations (notably Regulation 12(1) and parts of Regulation 14).
• The Respondent is a "practising barrister" and is likely to contravene s.46(1) of the 2015 Act and Part IV of the 2024 Regulations if permitted to provide services without a compliant policy; s.35 empowers the Court to grant prohibitory orders to prevent such contraventions.
• Company A acted consistently with statutory powers and proper procedure; the existence of a separate misconduct complaint does not preclude the Court from making s.35 orders.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Brussels Bar policy covers his professional activities across EU Member States (including The State) and thus provides the required indemnity for work in The State.
• If the Brussels Bar policy does not comply, the 2024 Regulations and related implementing regulations should be disapplied as inconsistent with his rights of establishment and freedom to provide services under the Treaty and the relevant EU Directives.
• The Court lacks jurisdiction or should not hear the application while a misconduct complaint is pending (contention rejected by the Court).

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court treated s.35 as a statutory injunction power capable of prohibiting a legal practitioner from contravening provisions of the 2015 Act or regulations. The Judge determined:

• The Respondent is a "practising barrister" and "qualifying barrister" under the 2015 Act and has provided, and intends to provide, legal services in The State using his home qualification.
• The Brussels Bar policy, on proper interpretation (including Article 9), is not intended to cover legal services provided by the Respondent in The State; neither the foreign Bar nor brokers or insurers gave the Respondent any confirming evidence of such territorial cover, which the Court found telling.
• Company D (one co-insurer) meets Solvency II licensing and appears on the Central Bank register; Company E (the other co-insurer) does not appear on the relevant register and has not evidenced exercise of any right to transact in The State. The absence of evidence that Company E intends to transact in The State meant Regulation 12(1) compliance could not be established.
• On Regulation 14, the Court found non-compliance with specified paragraphs (Regulation 14(b)–(d)) and possible non-compliance with Regulation 14(a) for reasons set out for fuller judgment.
• The Respondent's reliance on Treaty freedoms and the Lawyers' Establishment/Services Directives was rejected as misplaced for services provided in his Home Member State (The State). Even if those freedoms were engaged, the Court concluded Company A could require compliance with the 2015 Act and the 2024 Regulations consistent with the Directives' provisions permitting host-state regulatory measures (e.g., Article 6 of the Establishment Directive, Article 4 of the Services Directive and their implementing regulations).
• Procedurally, the application was properly brought by originating notice of motion under the relevant Rules, evidence by affidavit was appropriate, and there were no disputed facts requiring cross-examination. The existence of a separate misconduct complaint did not oust the Court's jurisdiction to grant s.35 orders; s.35 orders do not constitute findings of misconduct under Part 6.
• The Court rejected the Respondent's alternative contentions about the Zurich policy's non-compliance, finding that policy did comply and that the Respondent had previously relied on it and even obtained a low-cost renewal quote which he declined.

Holding and Implications

The Court granted the orders sought by Company A under s.35(1)(a) of the 2015 Act.

Direct effect: The Respondent is prohibited from providing legal services in The State and from holding himself out as a practising barrister entitled to provide such services unless and until he has an approved professional indemnity insurance policy that complies with the 2015 Act and the 2024 Regulations, and he must produce proof of such a policy before providing legal services. The interim orders are to last until 5pm on 11 June 2026; the Judge indicated an intention to make those orders permanent once the full judgment is delivered unless and until the Respondent obtains compliant insurance.

The Court also stated a provisional view that Company A should be awarded the costs of the application under s.169(1) of the 2015 Act, subject to submissions after delivery of the full judgment.

No new legal precedent was declared beyond the application of the 2015 Act and the 2024 Regulations to the facts of this case; the decision's principal consequence is to require the Respondent to hold compliant professional indemnity insurance before practising in The State.