The two applicants in R. v. Visitors to the Inns of Court (1992) were barristers of Lincoln's Inn who had been disbarred for professional misconduct – arising in unrelated circumstances – as a result of findings by the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Inns of Court. Their respective appeals against disbarment were heard by three High Court judges sitting as visitors to Lincoln's Inn and the findings of misconduct were in each case upheld. In one case, the disbarment was confirmed; in the other, a suspension for five years was substituted. Both barristers then applied to the High Court for judicial review of the visitors' decisions, and their cases were heard together by consent. These were the first applications of their kind, it having only recently become accepted that visitors (in the usual sense of that term) are within the scope of judicial review.

As a preliminary issue, the Divisional Court was invited to determine whether the High Court had any jurisdiction to review the decisions of visitors to the inns of court. The determination depended on the categorisation of this particular form of visitatorial authority. If the three judges had been acting as visitors, in the same sense as visitors of universities and colleges, then their decision fell within the scope of judicial review as recently extended. If, on the other hand, they could be regarded as exercising their jurisdiction as judges of the High Court, it was conceded by counsel and accepted by the court that judicial review was unavailable; the court cannot review itself.