the Institute obtained an injunction against J.L. pursuant to section 90 (7) of the Act, which stipulates that: "On application made ... by the secretary ... of the Institute/ the Supreme Court may, if it is satisfied that an unqualified person is acting or practising as a solicitor ..., make an order restraining that person from so acting or practising." 2.5 J.L. ignored the injunction. On 21 Kay 1986, the Chief Justice sentenced him to three weeks' imprisonment for contempt of court. The author appealed the injunction and the committal order. On 10 April 1987, the full Court dismissed the appeal against the committal order but set aside the injunction, inter alia, on the ground that the members of the Institute had not recommended the new insurance regulations. 2.6 Under a subsequent amendment to the Act, the Solicitor's Liability Committee may determine the insurance premium with the approval of the Institute's Council and without the necessary recommendations from the Institute's members. Notwithstanding, the author, maintaining that the fee constituted a form of taxation that would have to be determined by Parliament, continued to practise without the requisite certificate. 2.7 Throughout 1988, the author refused to pay his practising fees to the Institute, complaining that the Institute used the fees "improperly" to finance private activities, rather than for administrative or regulatory purposes. He contended that, although the Act did not specify the purpose for which the fee should be used, it was a statutory fee and should accordingly be used solely for such purposes. He further claimed that, as the fee was also fee for membership in the Institute, he was forced to become a member in a union. 2.8 On 11 and 15 March 1988, another judge of the Supreme Court, upon application of the Law Institute, issued another injunction against J.L. He ruled that the practising fee was commensurate to the Institute's statutory functions and that the insurance premiwi was not a "tax", but a contribution to the governance and good order of the profession. The order of 15 March 1988 carried a stay until the "final determination of an appeal by the applicant or further order". An appeal against the order of 11 March was rejected by the full Court on 8 December 1988. The High Court refused leave to appeal from the court's 3 u a 9 e m e r t t o n 1 3 October 1989. No application to modify or discharge the orders was made by the Law Institute. 2.9 On 30 November 1990, a Supreme Court judge again found the author in contempt of court. The author argued that a stay of the order of 15 March 1988 was still valid, as he had not appealed against it. The judge, however, held that the stay h,ad expired with the High Court's denial of leave to appeal. On 7 December 1990, the judge fined the author for having failed to obtain practising certificates for 1989 and 1990. The full Court denied leave to appeal against this order on 15 March 1991. Upon application from the Institute, the author's name was struck off the roll of solicitors and barristers of the Supreme Court on 11 June 1991. In addition, the author was again fined for contempt of court, with the proviso that, if the fine was not paid within 30 days, he would be placed under arrest. -441-