Webb v Solicitors Regulation Authority

In an appeal from a disciplinary tribunal, the appellate court must identify the nature of the challenged decision and apply the corresponding standard of review. It should scrutinise findings of fact carefully, while respecting the tribunal’s advantage in hearing oral evidence. An absence of motive involving benefit or loss is relevant but is not a prerequisite to a finding of dishonesty. The tribunal may infer deliberate and dishonest conduct from the chronology, documents, credibility findings and subsequent conduct. The risk or certainty that dishonesty will be discovered is also relevant, but does not necessarily outweigh other evidence. Where the tribunal’s decision is supported by the evidence and its reasoning is not materially defective, the appellate court should not interfere.

David Webb, a solicitor, appealed as of right against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dated 14 December 2012. The tribunal found proved allegations that he had failed to act in his client’s best interests, breached an undertaking and acted without integrity, including dishonestly, and ordered that he be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.

The appeal challenged the findings of dishonesty and alleged errors in the tribunal’s factual reasoning. Mr Webb did not challenge the finding concerning failure to act in the client’s best interests. The central issues were the proper appellate approach to factual findings, whether motive was necessary for dishonesty, and whether the evidence supported the conclusion that the breach of undertaking was deliberate rather than an innocent mistake.

1. Appeal dismissed. The tribunal’s findings under allegation (4), and its findings of dishonesty in relation to allegations (3) and (4), were upheld. The striking-off order therefore remained in force.
2. The proper appellate approach depended on the nature of the issue and the evidence. Primary factual findings, particularly those based on oral evidence and credibility, attracted appropriate respect. The appellate court could determine whether findings or inferences were wrong, but had to bear in mind the tribunal’s evidential advantage. Evaluative conclusions should not be disturbed unless outside the range of reasonable disagreement: [2007] UKHL 23, explaining [2003] 1 WLR 577, [2002] EWCA Civ 509, [2002] EWCA Civ 763 and [2006] EWCA Civ 1655.
3. The tribunal’s retention of an inaccurate statement in its factual background, concerning whether the client had signed the transfer form, was an error of form rather than substance. The tribunal had not relied on it as a finding and had expressly recognised that no benefit to Mr Webb or anyone else had been shown.
4. The tribunal was entitled to reject the explanation of innocent mistake. It could rely on the closely connected chronology, Mr Webb’s personal involvement in the correspondence, his failure to respond when asked to explain the registration, his failure to seek rectification, and the use of the word “renew” in the later application.
5. Under [2002] UKHL 12, the tribunal had to address the objective and subjective aspects of dishonesty. It did so. Proof of a motive involving benefit to one person or loss to another was not required. The absence of motive and the likelihood of discovery were matters for evaluation, but neither prevented a finding of dishonesty.
6. On the evidence, the tribunal was entitled to conclude that the application to register the property transfer was deliberate and dishonest, rather than mistaken and innocent.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision was dismissed. The findings of dishonesty and the striking-off order were upheld.
2. Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: By a written decision promulgated on 14 December 2012, the tribunal found allegations (2) and (4) proved, together with dishonesty in relation to allegations (3) and (4), and ordered that Mr Webb be struck off the Roll of Solicitors.