Javed, R (on the application of) v Solicitors Regulatory Authority

An appellate court reviewing disciplinary findings should give brief reasons for each adverse allegation, but an inadequately reasoned subsidiary finding will not justify intervention where the principal finding independently sustains the outcome. Dishonesty requires proof that the respondent knew that the conduct would be regarded as dishonest by ordinary honest people. An appellate court should be slow to disturb factual findings, particularly findings about a witness’s state of mind, unless exceptional circumstances exist. Where dishonesty by a solicitor is established, striking the solicitor from the Roll may be necessary to protect public confidence in the profession.

The appellant, a solicitor, appealed under section 49(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The tribunal found six allegations proved, including dishonesty in a fraudulent mortgage transaction, failures concerning an undertaking and the management and closure of his practice, and failures to co-operate with the regulator. It struck him from the Roll and ordered him to pay costs. One allegation, practising without a practising certificate, was dismissed.

The appeal challenged the tribunal’s reasoning, its application of the dishonesty test, its factual findings, and the severity of the sanction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The tribunal’s failure to give reasons for findings concerning a second mortgage transaction and an undertaking was an error. The tribunal was required to give at least brief reasons for each adverse conclusion, particularly where the appellant had advanced a specific answer to the allegations.
2. The error was immaterial. The finding concerning the 14 C Avenue transaction was independently sufficient to establish serious dishonesty and to justify the sanction. The appellant accepted that, if that finding was sustainable, striking him from the Roll was open to the tribunal.
3. The tribunal had applied the correct dishonesty test stated in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] UKHL 12; [2002] 2 All ER 377. The test required knowledge that the conduct would be regarded as dishonest by honest people. The tribunal’s reasoning showed that it had not applied a wholly objective test.
4. The appellant’s ill health did not undermine the decision. The medical evidence established illness from June 2009, whereas the mortgage transaction occurred in June 2008. The tribunal had considered his condition at the time of the hearing.
5. The High Court’s appellate jurisdiction extended to factual disputes, but it should be very slow to interfere with findings based on oral evidence and credibility. Reversal of a trial tribunal’s finding, especially concerning a person’s state of mind, was exceptional. The tribunal had ample material to reject the appellant’s evidence and conclude that he had acted dishonestly.
6. The sanction was not excessive. The integrity and reputation of the solicitors’ profession were of critical importance. Although the High Court had full jurisdiction to take a different view on sanction, it should give proper regard to the tribunal’s assessment of when removal from the Roll was necessary. The order striking the appellant from the Roll was upheld.
7. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, summarily assessed at £26,101.44. Enforcement was stayed without leave of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: Found six allegations proved, struck the appellant from the Roll of Solicitors and ordered costs. Allegation 4 was not proved.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 49(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 was dismissed. The strike-off and costs orders were upheld, with enforcement of appeal costs requiring leave of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.