Nikam, Re

A professional regulator may refuse a practising certificate where the applicant has no legal right to remain and work in the United Kingdom. Granting a certificate in those circumstances would be contrary to the public interest, could mislead clients and the public, prejudice the profession’s reputation, and involve connivance in an immigration breach.

An appeal against refusal of a certificate is appellate and supervisory. It is not the appropriate forum for compensation claims or declarations concerning immigration status. The statutory process is compatible with Article 6 where it provides an appeal to an independent tribunal.

Ranjana Devi Nikam, an Indian-qualified advocate, moved to England to take the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Tests and was later admitted as a solicitor. She obtained a waiver permitting practice as a sole practitioner, but her leave to remain expired and subsequent immigration applications failed.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority adjudicator refused her 2007/2008 practising certificate. The adjudication panel dismissed her appeal, relying on her lack of lawful permission to remain and work, the risk of deportation, and the public interest. Before the Court of Appeal she sought compensation, declaratory relief and a practising certificate. She argued that the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Tests affected her immigration position and that the SRA process breached Article 6. The central issues were the scope of the statutory appeal and whether refusal of the certificate was lawful.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal under section 13(2)(b) of the Solicitors Act 1974 was appellate and supervisory. It concerned the refusal of a practising certificate and was not the proper forum for the appellant’s compensation claims or for deciding who should make representations to the Home Office about her immigration status.
2. The power under section 13 to make such other order as the judge thinks fit did not authorise damages or similar compensation. There was also no power in an appeal of this kind to join the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord Chancellor.
3. The SRA was right not to take into account the appellant’s concerns about the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Tests and immigration status. Those matters lay between the appellant and the Home Office. In the absence of a legal right to remain and work in the United Kingdom, granting a practising certificate would have been improper and contrary to the public interest. It could falsely suggest that the appellant could lawfully act for clients, prejudice the profession’s reputation, expose clients to disruption through deportation, and amount to connivance in an immigration breach and criminal offence.
4. The judge stated, without prejudice to possible judicial review, that responsibility for making representations about the immigration significance of the tests lay with the person seeking leave to remain, not with the professional regulator, individual judges or the Lord Chancellor.
5. There was no breach of Article 6. The SRA process had been held compatible with Article 6 in Thomson v Law Society [2004] EWCA Civ 167, as applied in Lever v Law Society No. 13 of 2007 [2008] EWCA Civ 411. Compatibility included the right of appeal to an independent tribunal.

Order: Appeal dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed. The refusal of the practising certificate was upheld.
• Solicitors Regulation Authority adjudication panel: Appeal dismissed on 24 April 2008.
• Solicitors Regulation Authority adjudicator: Practising certificate refused on 11 February 2008.