Field v Law Society

An application to extend time for appealing from a professional disciplinary tribunal should be assessed by reference to the applicable procedural rules and, in a sufficiently complex case, the CPR 3.9 checklist. The court should consider the interests of justice, promptness, whether the default was intentional, the explanation for delay, compliance with other obligations, responsibility for the default, prejudice, and the effect of granting relief. A substantial unexplained delay, unsupported assertions, and weak proposed grounds may justify refusal. Finality and the need to bring stale litigation to an end may outweigh the opportunity to pursue an unmeritorious appeal.

The claimant, a solicitor, sought an extension of time to appeal against findings and a six-month suspension imposed by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 14 July 2009. The findings were filed with the Law Society on 3 February 2010, but the notice of appeal was not filed until 15 June 2010. He relied on ill health and an alleged earlier attempt to file the appeal. Neither matter was adequately supported by evidence. The central issue was whether the court should extend time despite the substantial delay and the absence of a satisfactory explanation.

1. Application refused. The court refused to extend time. Consequently, there was no substantive appeal against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision.
2. Under section 22.6B of Practice Direction 52 Appeals, the notice of appeal should have been filed within 14 days after the Tribunal’s findings were filed with the Law Society. The applicable deadline was therefore 28 February 2010.
3. Following Sayers v Clarke Walker (a firm) [2002] 1 WLR 3095, the court considered it appropriate, given the potential complexity of the case, to have regard to the checklist in CPR 3.9. The checklist was applied to the extension application.
4. The application was not prompt. There was no satisfactory explanation for the period from 28 February to 15 June 2010. The claimant’s assertions of illness and an improperly filed notice were unsupported by witness statement, affidavit, or other adequate evidence. His responsibility for the default was also material, particularly as he had acted in person and was himself a solicitor.
5. The court also considered the effect of the delay on the Law Society, the age of the disciplinary proceedings, the claimant’s compliance with earlier obligations, and the apparent weakness of the proposed grounds of appeal. The interests of justice favoured finality. Lord Justice Aikens concluded that the discretion should not be exercised; Mr Justice Maddison agreed for those reasons.
6. The Law Society was awarded costs, with an interim payment of £10,000. A more detailed costs breakdown was to be supplied, with detailed assessment if the costs were not agreed within 21 days.

1. Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: findings made against the claimant and suspension from practice for six months ordered on 14 July 2009.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): the application to extend time for appealing was refused. The substantive appeal therefore did not proceed.