Blakey v Solicitors Regulation Authority
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE FOSKETT
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Employment Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant, a solicitor made bankrupt in April 2013, was fined and ordered to cover costs by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) for breaching Principles 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011 by not paying court-mandated costs. His appeal against the SDT’s decision and the SRA's request to reconsider the second allegation against him were both dismissed by MR JUSTICE FOSKETT.
Judgment
MR JUSTICE FOSKETT:
The Appellant is a solicitor (having been admitted as a solicitor on 1 February 1982), albeit now not practising. In circumstances to which I will refer below, he was made bankrupt on 26 April 2013 and as a result his practising certificate was suspended. Prior to that he had been practising in Nottingham as a sole practitioner under the style ‘Sinclairs Solicitors’.
He appeals, pursuant to section 49(1)(b) of the Solicitors Act 1974, against the decision of a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (‘SDT’) of 29 July 2013 to impose upon him a fine of £2,000 and an order that he should pay £4,250 by way of costs of the proceedings before the tribunal. Although I have expressed his appeal in that way, he does seek to challenge the finding that he was in breach of Principles 6 and/or 7 of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (‘SRA’) Principles 2011.
The proceedings before the SDT were contested and he faced the two allegations to which I will refer below. The case against him on the first allegation was found proved, but the second allegation was not proved. The SRA seeks, out of time, permission to cross appeal against the dismissal of the second allegation. I will return to that issue below.
I can set out the essential background fairly shortly. During 2009 the Appellant acted for a client, who I will simply identify simply as ‘SW’, in proceedings in the Nottingham County Court. SW was a lady with, it seems, long-standing psychiatric problems. Her husband had died in April 2011. He was bankrupt at the date of his death and his trustee in bankruptcy was a Mr Findlay, a chartered accountant and insolvency practitioner, who practised under the style Findlay James of Cheltenham. He instructed a firm of solicitors in the proceedings to which I will refer below. In view of the allegations made by the Appellant about the conduct of those solicitors, and bearing in mind that they are not parties to these proceedings and thus able to respond to those allegations, I will simply refer to them as ‘S’. They briefed a member of the Bar who for similar reasons I will refer to simply as ‘B’.
The family home of SW and her late husband was in SW’s sole name and held on trust for the daughter of their son who had died in a road traffic accident in 1997.
Mr Findlay sought a declaration from the court that SW’s husband had an interest in the house and for an order for sale. This was resisted by SW and the Appellant acted as her adviser and advocate