Wells v Law Society

An application to extend time for appealing a Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal decision must be supported by a good explanation for delay. The court may nevertheless consider the proposed appeal where the consequences of refusing an extension are serious and the merits require examination. On the merits, allegations of dishonesty against different professional respondents must be assessed separately, having regard to their individual involvement and the evidence against each. A tribunal which applies the applicable dishonesty test and gives a rational basis for its conclusions will not be interfered with merely because its reasoning could have been fuller. Where serious dishonesty forms part of extensive professional misconduct, striking the solicitor from the Roll may be inevitable.

Steven Wells appealed findings of dishonesty and an order striking him from the Roll of Solicitors following proceedings before a Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal. The Tribunal had also disciplined his fellow director, Matthew Lamb, but had made different findings as to dishonesty and imposed a three-year suspension on him.

The appeal was substantially out of time. The Tribunal’s findings had been filed on 30 January 2002, but the notice of appeal was not lodged until 17 May 2004. The central issues were whether time should be extended, whether the Tribunal had properly distinguished Mr Wells from Mr Lamb, whether its dishonesty findings were adequately reasoned, and whether striking off was proportionate.

1. Extension of time. The delay was exceptionally prolonged and no good explanation had been advanced for failing to lodge an appeal within days, weeks or months of the findings. The application to extend time was therefore refused. Because striking off had grave consequences, and having regard to the overriding objective, the court nevertheless considered the proposed grounds of appeal.
2. Dishonesty findings. The Tribunal had applied the proper dishonesty test identified in Royal Brunei v Tan [1995] 2 AC 378 and adopted in Twinsectra v Yardley [2002] UKHL 12. The court agreed with that approach. The Tribunal was required to consider the case against each solicitor separately, including the allegations, the person’s involvement in the practice, and the evidence.
3. The Tribunal was entitled to distinguish Mr Wells from Mr Lamb. Mr Wells was the more active director in the financial affairs of the practice and the mortgage management scheme. His knowledge and control, including in relation to misuse of client funds and the failure to pay interest, provided a sufficient rational basis for the findings of dishonesty. The Tribunal’s reasons could have been more detailed, but they were not unreasonable, unfair or perverse.
4. The court exercised its power to review and reconsider the proceedings on their merits, but found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s findings. Given the extensive misconduct affecting members of the public and the serious dishonesty proved against Mr Wells, striking him from the Roll was inevitable.
5. Both the application for an extension of time and the proposed appeal were dismissed. The Law Society was awarded its costs, subject to the stated limitation concerning enforcement.

1. Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal: Findings filed on 30 January 2002. Mr Wells was found dishonest in relation to misuse of client funds and the mortgage management scheme and was struck from the Roll. Mr Lamb was suspended for three years.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The application for an extension of time and the proposed appeal were dismissed.