Blakey v Solicitors Regulation Authority

A solicitor must comply with a court order unless and until it is set aside. This remains so where the solicitor alleges fraud, lack of jurisdiction or procedural irregularity. A potentially tainted order is valid and enforceable in the meantime. Non-payment of such an order may breach professional principles requiring a solicitor to maintain public trust and comply with legal and regulatory obligations. The absence of a sealed order does not prevent an order from taking effect where the applicable procedural rules provide that it takes effect when made or pronounced.

The claimant, a solicitor, appealed under section 49(1)(b) of the Solicitors Act 1974 against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision finding breaches of Principles 6 and 7 of the SRA Principles 2011. The breaches arose from his failure to pay a wasted costs order and a regulatory costs order. The claimant argued that the wasted costs order was unenforceable because it had not been sealed and was tainted by alleged fraud. The SRA also sought permission to appeal out of time against dismissal of a second allegation. The central issues were whether the claimant could refuse compliance pending a possible challenge to the order and whether permission should be granted to the SRA.

1. The claimant’s appeal against the disciplinary finding was dismissed. A court order remains valid and enforceable until set aside, even if it was made without jurisdiction or is alleged to have been obtained by fraud. Allegations of fraud may provide grounds for setting an order aside, but they do not justify treating it as a nullity in the meantime.
2. The claimant was therefore required to comply with the wasted costs order after the civil appeal process had been exhausted. The possibility that the order had not been sealed did not alter that conclusion. The Tribunal was entitled to find breaches of Principles 6 and 7 because the claimant failed to pay an enforceable court order despite having the means to do so.
3. Under Rules 40.2.1 and 40.7 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the order took effect when pronounced or made. The Tribunal’s conclusion on the effect of the order was correct.
4. The challenge to the £2,000 fine could not succeed. The penalty was a matter for the specialist Tribunal, which had taken account of the claimant’s age, inability to practise and absence of previous disciplinary findings. No basis for interference was established.
5. Permission for the SRA to appeal out of time against dismissal of the second allegation was refused. The passage of time, the potential unfairness to the claimant and the lack of a proper adversarial argument made an out-of-time appeal inappropriate.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The claimant’s appeal from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was dismissed. Permission for the SRA’s proposed out-of-time appeal was refused.
• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: On 29 July 2013, the Tribunal found the claimant in breach of Principles 6 and 7, imposed a £2,000 fine and ordered payment of £4,250 costs. A second allegation was dismissed.