Solicitors Regulation Authority v Manak & Anor

A disciplinary tribunal may prevent proceedings continuing where a fair trial is impossible, but defective or inconvenient pleadings do not, without more, amount to an abuse of process. The tribunal must examine the case against each respondent and each allegation separately.

At the close of the prosecution case, a submission of no case to answer requires consideration of what is alleged, whether it amounts to misconduct, and whether the evidence is sufficient to require an answer. Where pleadings are unclear, the tribunal should consider clarification, amendment, adjournment, or striking out particular duplicative or oppressive allegations before striking out the proceedings generally.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority appealed under s49 of the Solicitors’ Act 1974 against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision to strike out disciplinary allegations against Kulwant Singh Manak and Rajbinder Kaur Dhillon as an abuse of process.

The tribunal considered that the pleadings were confused, heavily cross-referenced and insufficiently clear to permit a fair trial. The appeal concerned whether that conclusion was justified in respect of particular allegations, including transactions involving the Dhillon family, Beauchamp House, and supervision of other solicitors. Mr Manak brought a cross-appeal concerning Beauchamp House and costs.

1. Outcome. The appeal succeeded in part and the cross-appeal failed. The tribunal’s decision was quashed except in respect of the allegations concerning Mr Manak’s failure to supervise R5 in relation to the Part VII transactions and 115 Swan Lane. The restored allegations were remitted for determination by a differently constituted tribunal.
2. The tribunal correctly stated the abuse-of-process test: where it is impossible to secure a fair trial, proceedings cannot continue. That justified striking out the allegations concerning R5’s Part VI Swan Lane transaction, given the confused presentation and missing documents. It also justified the Part VII supervision allegations, although the judge’s reasoning differed from the tribunal’s.
3. However, poor or prolix presentation did not itself establish abuse. The tribunal was required to examine the case against each respondent and each allegation. The allegations concerning the Dhillon transactions, Ms Dhillon’s supervision, and Beauchamp House were adequately pleaded and could be understood. They should not have been struck out.
4. A submission of no case to answer requires consideration of: what is alleged against the particular respondent; whether the alleged conduct constitutes misconduct; and whether the evidence is sufficient to require an answer. This structured approach would also have identified whether any pleading difficulty could be cured by amendment or adjournment, or whether a particular allegation should be struck out.
5. The observations in Thaker v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2011] EWHC 660 (Admin) supported clear, concise pleadings, but did not establish that defective pleadings must be struck out as an abuse. The dishonesty pleading concerning Beauchamp House disclosed a prima facie case, despite possible innocent explanations.
6. The deferred allegations had not been struck out. The judge indicated that adding them to the restored allegations would generally be undesirable unless the respondents consented. There was no reason in principle to prohibit publication of the tribunal’s result until costs had been determined.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision announced on 12 November 2014. The decision was quashed in part and the restored allegations were remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.