Roberts v Hook & Anor

In disciplinary proceedings that may lead to striking a solicitor from the Roll, a complaint alleging dishonesty must be supported by hard, credible evidence capable of establishing at least a case to answer. Procedural notices cannot manufacture the evidential basis for such an allegation. Where the evidence remains materially unchanged from an earlier unsuccessful complaint, the disciplinary tribunal may dismiss the complaint without proceeding to a hearing. An appeal requires a real prospect of success and, under CPR 52.13, an important issue of practice or principle or another compelling reason.

Mr Roberts complained to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal that Mr Hook and Ms Goss had fabricated attendance notes relating to the sale of his former property and had committed other professional breaches. The tribunal dismissed the complaint on the papers as disclosing no case to answer.

Mr Roberts’ first High Court appeal was dismissed by Calvert-Smith J. He later made a substantially similar complaint, relying on Civil Evidence Act notices and notices to admit facts. The tribunal again dismissed it. HH Judge Thornton QC dismissed the subsequent High Court appeal, relying on vagueness, lack of evidence, delay and the substantially repetitive nature of the complaint. The central issue was whether the new procedural steps supplied a sufficient evidential basis for a case of dishonest fabrication.

1. Application dismissed. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and no important issue of practice or principle, or other compelling reason, justified permission under CPR 52.13.
2. The complaint remained unsupported by credible evidence that the attendance notes had been forged with dishonest intent to misrepresent what had passed between the parties. The position was unchanged from the first High Court appeal. In the absence of such evidence, the SDT had no alternative but to dismiss the complaint as disclosing no case to answer.
3. The Civil Evidence Act notices and notices to admit facts did not alter that position. Their service could not create evidence of dishonest intent. So far as the Civil Evidence Act notices had any procedural effect, they potentially made the contents of the attendance notes evidence of the facts stated in them, contrary to Mr Roberts’ case that the notes were manufactured later.
4. The disciplinary proceedings were quasi-criminal in character because they could result in the solicitors being struck off the Roll. They therefore could not proceed without hard evidence which, if placed before the SDT, could lead it to conclude that there was at least a case to answer.
5. The court did not need to determine the separate arguments concerning abuse of process, delay or whether a fair trial remained possible, because the absence of credible evidence was independently sufficient to dispose of the application.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Permission to appeal was refused and the renewed application was dismissed.
2. High Court of Justice, Administrative Court — HH Judge Thornton QC dismissed the appeal from the SDT’s dismissal of the complaint.
3. High Court of Justice — Calvert-Smith J dismissed Mr Roberts’ earlier appeal from the SDT’s first dismissal of substantially the same allegations.
4. Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal — The complaint was dismissed on the papers as disclosing no case to answer.