Thakerar v Law Society

On a second appeal, permission requires an important issue of principle or practice, or another good reason for the appeal to be heard. A disciplinary tribunal need not give elaborate reasons where the essential facts are agreed and its conclusion depends substantially on its assessment of the respondent’s evidence. Its decision must be read as a whole. A tribunal may infer dishonesty from the overall evidence and may find that a solicitor breached duties concerning client money and stakeholder obligations. It may also find a breach of professional duty, without dishonesty, where a solicitor fails to follow specific instructions and cannot show that the client was adequately protected. The tribunal’s assessment of professional misconduct and appropriate penalty carries particular weight.

The applicant, a solicitor, sought permission for a second appeal from the Divisional Court’s decision of 29 November 2001. The Divisional Court had dismissed his appeal against the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal’s order of 27 June 2000 striking him from the Roll for professional misconduct.

The proposed appeal challenged findings concerning a dishonest affidavit, transfers of stakeholder money into the solicitor’s office account, and a remortgage transaction in which he had acted for Nationwide Building Society. The central questions were whether the Tribunal had given adequate reasons, properly assessed the evidence, and whether the second-appeal permission threshold was met.

1. Permission refused. The application disclosed no important issue of principle or practice and no other good reason for a second appeal. The Divisional Court had correctly dismissed the appeal.
2. The Tribunal’s reasons were adequate. The essential facts concerning the affidavit were agreed, and the conclusion depended principally on its assessment of the applicant’s answers in evidence. No further elaboration was required because the basis of the conclusion was clear from the Tribunal’s finding that he had sworn an affidavit containing a blatant lie and had acted dishonestly.
3. The Tribunal was entitled to assess the applicant’s evidence in its overall context. Its finding that substantial transfers of stakeholder money into the solicitor’s own office account were made dishonestly, and breached duties concerning the stewardship of client money and the stakeholder relationship, was sufficiently reasoned when the decision was read as a whole.
4. In the remortgage transaction, the Tribunal had not found dishonesty. It was nevertheless entitled to conclude that the applicant had failed in his professional duties by not following Nationwide Building Society’s specific instructions and by failing to establish that its position had been satisfactorily protected.
5. The Tribunal was entitled to assess the needs of the profession when determining the appropriate penalty and was best placed to make that judgment. The seriousness of striking the applicant off and depriving him of his livelihood did not provide a basis for permission.

Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission for a second appeal was refused.
• Divisional Court: Dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal’s order.
• Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal: Ordered that the applicant be struck off the Roll of Solicitors for professional misconduct.