Ratra v Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

A disciplinary tribunal considering numerous complaints may assess both the merits of each allegation and the multiplicity of allegations. An appellate court need not interfere with an administrative court arrangement without evidence of predisposition or bias. Complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights fail where the applicant received a full and fair hearing. Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed appeal lacks sufficient prospects of success.

The applicant had made numerous complaints to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal concerning solicitors who had acted for him. The Tribunal dismissed the complaints, finding no prima facie case. The Divisional Court declined to interfere with that decision and made an order on 3 December 2001.

Mr Ratra sought permission to appeal, alleging that the Tribunal had improperly relied on the multiplicity of complaints, that the attendance of the tipstaff and an assistant suggested bias, and that the Divisional Court had failed to recognise his rights under Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success.

1. The application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The applicant had not demonstrated sufficient prospects of success to justify permission. There was no order for costs.
2. The Tribunal was entitled to consider each allegation separately and also to form a view about the multiplicity of allegations. The reference to the large number of applications did not establish that the Tribunal had adopted an erroneous approach.
3. The attendance of the tipstaff and an assistant at the Divisional Court hearing did not justify appellate intervention. No evidence suggested that the arrangement indicated predisposition or bias. The court retained an unfettered discretion over such administrative arrangements.
4. The complaint under Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights was rejected. The evidence showed that the applicant had received a full and fair hearing in the Divisional Court.
5. The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that the matter was not suitable for further appellate consideration and refused permission.

1. Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: dismissed the applicant’s complaints, finding no prima facie case.
2. Divisional Court: declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s reaction and made an order on 3 December 2001.
3. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the application for permission to appeal.