Adams v Law Society of England & Wales

When deciding whether to adjourn an appeal or permission application, the court must balance fairness to the applicant and other parties against the proper functioning of the court and the need for finality. Medical difficulties do not justify an indefinite adjournment where there is no realistic prospect of readiness within a foreseeable period.

Solicitors’ intervention proceedings are summary proceedings designed to determine whether the intervention should continue and to secure the return of current files. They are not a vehicle for trying historic grievances, reputational complaints or disputed allegations concerning the intervention. A private contractual fee dispute resolved by an agreed tribunal is not ordinarily susceptible to judicial review.

The appellant, a solicitor, challenged the Law Society’s intervention in his practice under the Solicitors Act. His Part 8 claim was struck out as an abuse of process by HHJ Weeks QC, who considered that the passage of time and changed circumstances meant that the relief sought would no longer be granted.

In separate proceedings, the appellant challenged a joint tribunal decision requiring him to pay a barrister’s fees. Sullivan J refused permission to apply for judicial review, holding that the tribunal was not a public body and that the dispute was private law in character.

The Court of Appeal considered the appellant’s applications for permission to appeal and his applications for adjournments, including on medical grounds. The central questions were whether further delay was fair or practicable, whether either proposed appeal had merit, and whether the joint tribunal decision was susceptible to judicial review.

1. The applications for adjournment were refused. The court had to decide the issue for itself, notwithstanding the Law Society’s neutral position. Fairness to the appellant had to be balanced against fairness to the respondents, the proper functioning of the court and the need to bring proceedings to finality within a reasonable time. The medical reports showed no real likelihood that the appellant would be ready to prosecute the applications within the foreseeable future. Since neither application had merit, a further adjournment would have been unjustified (paras [30]-[32], [45], [52]).
2. The intervention proceedings were a summary remedy under the Solicitors Act. Their purpose was to provide a prompt means of recovering current files and determining whether the intervention should continue. They were not intended to determine whether the original intervention had been justified, restore the solicitor’s reputation, or provide a forum for allegations of fraud and dishonesty against the Law Society. The summary procedure was unsuitable for extensive disputed factual issues (paras [35], [38]-[42]).
3. HHJ Weeks was entitled to conclude that, because of the substantial delay and changed circumstances, the court would not grant the relief sought. The proceedings had therefore become pointless, and the appellant’s failures to comply with directions were inexcusable. There was no compelling reason for a trial, and the grounds of appeal disclosed no arguable error (paras [36]-[44]). The Court of Appeal also accepted that the intervention regime was a necessary means of protecting the public and that the appellant’s proposed Convention arguments had no merit, consistent with Holder v The Law Society (para [42]).
4. The joint tribunal decision was not susceptible to judicial review. The tribunal was not a public body and was resolving a private law dispute under an agreement by which the parties had accepted its procedure. Any complaint about the negotiation proviso could have been raised before the tribunal. The European Convention on Human Rights did not prevent parties from agreeing to pay fees or to refer disputes to experts or arbitrators (paras [46]-[50]). Both applications for permission to appeal were refused. The order was: applications refused (para [52]).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused the appellant’s applications for permission to appeal and refused the related applications for adjournment.
• High Court, Chancery Division: HHJ Weeks QC struck out the claim against the Law Society as an abuse of process and refused permission to appeal.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Sullivan J refused permission to apply for judicial review of the joint tribunal decision and thereafter refused permission to appeal.