Webb v Solicitors Regulation Authority

In regulatory disciplinary proceedings, the court may take the unsuccessful solicitor’s means into account when deciding the form and enforceability of a costs order. This is particularly appropriate where the regulator’s established practice is not to pursue impecunious former solicitors, because taking means into account at the costs stage will not disadvantage the profession. The court should assess reasonable costs having regard to work properly required, including whether issues were raised unnecessarily or late. An order may therefore be made subject to enforcement only with further order of the court.

Following the determination of an appeal from proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the court was asked to decide the costs of the appeal. The Solicitors Regulation Authority sought £22,018.20. The claimant accepted that the normal rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs should apply, but relied on his limited means to argue for a lower sum and for enforcement only with leave of the High Court.

The claimant had no assets, lived in rented accommodation, could no longer practise as a solicitor, and had substantial unpaid legal costs. The central issues were whether his means should affect the form of the costs order and what sum represented the reasonable costs of the appeal.

1. The claimant was ordered to pay the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s costs of the appeal, but the order was not to be enforced without further order of the High Court.

2. Although the ordinary rule is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs, these proceedings arose from professional regulation intended to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the profession. The claimant’s means were therefore relevant to the form of the order.

3. Applying the principles stated by Mitting J in Solicitors Regulation Authority v Davis and McGlinchey [2011] EWHC 232 (Admin), where the regulator does not normally pursue impecunious solicitors or former solicitors, the court may make a costs order subject to enforcement only with leave. On the evidence, the claimant was impecunious and the Authority would be no worse off by that form of order.

4. The Authority’s claimed costs were reduced because its respondent’s notice was late and raised matters which did not require adjudication. Having considered the work reasonably required and the rates claimed, the reasonable costs were summarily assessed at £20,000.

The judgment determined the costs of an appeal from proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The judgment does not state the citation of the decision under appeal.