Newfield v The Law Society

On a second appeal, permission requires a real prospect of success and either an important point of principle or practice or another compelling reason. Re-argument of factual findings by a professional disciplinary tribunal does not ordinarily satisfy that threshold. The appellate court will interfere only in a clear case. Alleged overlap between successive disciplinary proceedings does not establish unfairness where the matters are materially separate or self-contained. Serious accounts-rule breaches, failure to supervise a clerk and deliberate non-disclosure in ancillary relief proceedings may justify striking a solicitor off the roll.

Edward Newfield sought permission for a second appeal against the Divisional Court's dismissal of his appeal from the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal. The Tribunal had found breaches of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules, failure to supervise an unadmitted clerk and failure to ensure that the court was not misled in ancillary relief proceedings concerning Mr Baxter. It ordered that Mr Newfield be struck off the roll.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal was entitled to make those findings and impose that sanction. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success and raised an important point of principle or practice, or otherwise involved a compelling reason for an appeal.

1. Disposition. The application for permission to appeal was refused. The proposed second appeal disclosed no real prospect of success and no important point of principle or practice, or other compelling reason.
2. Second appeal threshold. A second appeal requires more than an arguable disagreement with the lower court. The applicant must show a real prospect of success and, in addition, an important point of principle or practice or some other compelling reason.
3. Earlier proceedings and delay. The reliance on Gilchrist v Law Society [2001] EWHC Admin 122 did not assist. The Divisional Court had found no significant overlap between the earlier disciplinary proceedings and the later allegations. The Baxter matter was self-contained and had not formed part of the earlier case. The possibility that it could have been dealt with earlier did not provide a realistic basis for appeal. Questions concerning delay were matters for the Tribunal and had also been considered by the Divisional Court.
4. Factual findings. The allegations concerning supervision, non-disclosure and the Baxter matter were issues of fact for the Tribunal. The applicant's contention that the evidence could not satisfy the Tribunal beyond reasonable doubt amounted to a challenge to its factual assessment. The Tribunal had been entitled to rely, among other matters, on the applicant's own letter referring to deliberate non-disclosure. No error of law had been shown.
5. Professional sanction. The Tribunal was entitled to regard the misconduct as incompatible with the high standards of probity, integrity and trustworthiness required of a solicitor. The seriousness of the accounts matters, the failure to supervise the clerk and the failure to disclose the lump sum were matters capable of supporting striking off. A busy or successful practice did not alter the Tribunal's responsibility to determine professional impropriety. The approach was consistent with Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512, and there was no clear case warranting appellate intervention.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 1 November 2006, Lady Justice Arden refused permission for a second appeal.
• Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division — By order dated 14 July 2005, dismissed Mr Newfield's appeal from the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal and upheld its findings and sanction.
• Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal — On 18 February 2003, found the third and fourth allegations proved, in addition to the first two admitted allegations, and ordered that Mr Newfield be struck off the roll.