Ijomanta v Solicitors Regulation Authority

On a renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal, an applicant must show both a real prospect of success and an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for a further appeal. An appellate court should not interfere with a disciplinary tribunal’s factual finding of dishonesty where the tribunal applied the correct test, heard the applicant’s evidence and had a proper basis for its conclusion. A disciplinary penalty is not unreasonable or disproportionate merely because its consequences are serious where it falls within the permissible range. Permission was refused.

The applicant, a solicitor, was disciplined after answering incorrectly on a professional indemnity insurance proposal form about previous investigations or interventions by the Law Society. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that he knowingly gave a false and misleading answer and was dishonest. In light of that finding and his previous suspensions, it struck him off the Roll.

The applicant appealed to the High Court, challenging the construction of the question, the finding of dishonesty and the penalty. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tribunal had applied the correct test and that striking off was inevitable. The applicant sought renewed permission to bring a second appeal to the Court of Appeal.

1. Permission test. A renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal required the applicant to establish both that the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success and that it raised an important point of principle or practice, or that there was some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
2. Construction of the proposal question. The question asking whether any fee earner had practised in a firm subject to an investigation or intervention by the Law Society had a clear and obvious meaning. It included a firm with which the fee earner had practised at the date of the proposal. The serious consequences of a dishonesty finding did not justify giving the question a favourable or strained construction.
3. Dishonesty finding. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had applied the correct test. Having heard the applicant give evidence, it was entitled to find that he understood the question, knew that his answer was false and did not honestly believe it to be correct. Neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal had a proper basis for reversing that factual finding, particularly since neither court had the tribunal’s substantial advantage in observing and hearing the applicant’s evidence.
4. Penalty. The striking-off order was within the range of penalties open to the tribunal, having regard to the dishonesty finding and the applicant’s previous suspensions. It was not unreasonable or disproportionate.
5. There was no real prospect of success, and the application disclosed neither an important point of principle or practice nor another compelling reason. Permission to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2015] EWCA Civ 793, the renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal was refused.
2. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: The applicant’s appeal from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was dismissed. The judge upheld the tribunal’s finding of dishonesty and considered striking off inevitable.
3. Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: The charge of knowingly giving a false and misleading answer was proved, and the applicant was struck off the Roll.