Chaudery v Solicitors Regulation Authority

An appeal under a professional regulatory scheme must be filed within the prescribed period where the legislation provides no power to extend time. Filing occurs when the document is delivered to the court office, including by post, rather than when the court office stamps or processes it. A regulatory panel deciding character and suitability may determine whether the applicant acted dishonestly. It must assess all relevant facts and apply the profession’s requirements of honesty and compliance with regulatory obligations. A fresh panel directed to reconsider a matter may decide it afresh. Where the applicant has been given a fair opportunity to address the relevant issues, a decision based on dishonesty and regulatory non-compliance will not be disturbed.

The appellant sought student enrolment from the Solicitors Regulation Authority before undertaking the Legal Practice Course. His application disclosed some driving offences but omitted a caution for possession of a class C drug and other relevant information. A first adjudication panel refused his appeal. The matter was then directed to be reconsidered because the reasons were inadequate, and a fresh panel refused the appeal on the grounds of dishonesty and failure to comply with regulatory requirements.

The appellant challenged the fresh panel’s decision under Regulation 5(5) of the Solicitors' Training Regulations 2009, arguing that the appeal was out of time, that the panel could not determine dishonesty, and that the procedure was unfair.

1. Jurisdiction and filing. The applicable regulations provided a three-month time limit and no express power to extend it. Following Blackett v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2004] EWHC 1494, the court had no jurisdiction to extend time. However, filing meant delivery to the court office. Applying Deborah Van Aken v London Borough of Camden [2002] EWCA Civ 1724, delivery by post was sufficient when received, notwithstanding that the court office stamped the notice on the following day. The appellant’s notice was therefore filed within time.
2. Regulatory determination of dishonesty. The SRA panel was entitled, and required, to consider all the facts relevant to character and suitability, including whether the appellant had acted dishonestly. The applicable guidelines required confidence that an applicant was honest and trustworthy and willing to comply with regulatory requirements. The authorities, including Re A Solicitor (No 4 of 2009), Z Afsar and Jideofo v the Law Society (No 6 of 2006), supported the need for a rigorous and fair assessment of dishonesty in applicants for admission as well as practising solicitors.
3. Fresh reconsideration and fairness. The second panel was directed to reconsider the matter afresh, so it was not bound by the first panel’s failure to make a finding of dishonesty. The interview addressed the omitted caution and related failures in substantial detail. The procedure was fair and disclosed no procedural impropriety.
4. Disposition. The panel’s decision was manifestly justified and could not be faulted in its findings, reasoning or approach. The appellant’s application was dismissed. He was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of £5,922.24 within 28 days.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appellant’s application challenging the SRA adjudication decision was dismissed. The court held that the notice had been filed in time and rejected the substantive and procedural grounds.
• SRA fresh adjudication panel: On 24 August 2010, the panel refused the appeal against refusal of student enrolment, finding dishonesty and failure to comply with regulatory requirements.
• SRA first adjudication panel: The appellant’s appeal was refused on 19 March 2010. The Head of Adjudication directed reconsideration on 9 June 2010 because the reasons were insufficient.
• SRA senior assessment officer: The application for student enrolment was refused on 12 November 2009.