Sandbrook Solicitors, Re

Legal representatives seeking without-notice interim relief in immigration proceedings owe a strict duty of candour. They must disclose all material facts, including previous applications and adverse decisions. Once relief is granted, they must serve and pursue the underlying proceedings in accordance with the procedural rules. Obtaining an injunction and allowing the substantive claim to lapse may constitute an abuse of process and serious professional misconduct. A weak or hopeless claim is not, by itself, sanctionable. The critical distinction is between an unarguable case advanced fairly and one advanced in a professionally improper manner. The representative’s primary duty is to the court or tribunal, and must take precedence over the client’s interests.

The Upper Tribunal considered the conduct of Sandbrook Solicitors in five immigration judicial review cases involving applications for urgent, generally without-notice, relief against removal. In several cases, interim orders were obtained but proceedings were not served or pursued. In others, previous applications and adverse decisions were not disclosed, or Tribunal officials were asked to treat the proceedings as academic. The applications were subsequently refused as totally without merit and abuses of process.

Sandbrook was required to attend and explain the conduct of the firm, its partners and caseworkers. The firm’s representative was unable to provide substantive assistance, and the relevant solicitor and caseworker did not attend. The central issue was whether the documented conduct justified referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

1. Outcome. The Tribunal made no formal findings of fact against Sandbrook or any individual solicitor, but referred the conduct of the firm and its solicitors to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for investigation. The relevant court files and the judgment were to be sent to the Authority.
2. Weak claims. An application which fails on paper, or after an oral renewal, does not of itself justify a sanction. Applicants are entitled to have weak cases adjudicated. There is, however, a material distinction between an unarguable case advanced fairly and professionally and an unarguable case advanced through improper conduct, including as a platform for obtaining interim relief.
3. Duty of candour. A representative seeking without-notice interim relief must place all relevant facts before the judge and identify serious points against the application. This includes previous approaches to a court or tribunal, earlier judicial review claims, and adverse decisions. Judges hearing urgent applications should investigate apparent delay and ensure that the fullest practicable factual account is provided.
4. Service and pursuit. Interim relief is temporary and remains subject to later decisions on permission, a with-notice hearing or further order. The representative must serve the proceedings on the respondent and the Tribunal and must pursue the substantive claim. Obtaining relief and then abandoning the proceedings is a serious breach of professional conduct and may amount to abuse of process.
5. Wider duties. Attempts to persuade Tribunal officials that proceedings are academic, repeated failures to answer queries, and placing clients’ interests above the court’s or Tribunal’s interests were identified as further matters of concern. The primary duty of legal representatives is owed to the court or Tribunal.

Future orders granting urgent relief against removal should, wherever possible, record expressly the representative’s obligation to comply with the service rules.