Solicitors Regulation Authority v Wingate & Anor

On an appeal under section 49(4) of the Solicitors Act 1974, the High Court has a broad discretion to make any appropriate order, including remitting sanction to the professional tribunal. Remittal is appropriate where the sanction is not self-evident, involves a substantial range of possible outcomes, and requires specialist understanding of professional practice and possible conditions of practice. The remitted issue must be treated as wholly at large. The tribunal must exercise its own unfettered discretion and must not be influenced by comments made during earlier submissions or discussions, except for the reasoning contained within the judgments themselves.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority appealed against decisions of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal concerning David Wingate and Steven Evans. In an earlier judgment, the High Court determined the substantive issues and concluded that matters had been proved, following errors in the tribunal’s original assessment. The question of sanction and related costs was adjourned. At the further hearing, the parties addressed whether the High Court should determine sanction itself or remit it to the tribunal, including whether the original tribunal panel should reconsider the matter.

1. Power to remit. Section 49(4) of the Solicitors Act 1974 gives the High Court a very wide discretion to make such order on the appeal as it thinks fit. That discretion includes remitting sanction to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
2. Appropriate forum for sanction. The court remitted the whole question of sanction because the case was unusual and the appropriate sanction was not self-evident. The findings involved lack of integrity rather than dishonesty in relation to Mr Wingate, and manifest incompetence in relation to Mr Evans. The possible outcomes ranged from striking off or suspension, including suspended suspension with conditions of practice, to fines. The tribunal was better placed to assess sanctions in this type of professional case and to evaluate any conditions of practice. Its usual constitution as a panel of three also supported remittal, rather than determination by a single judge.
3. Scope of remittal. The question of sanction, and whether the tribunal’s earlier costs decision should be adjusted, was remitted to the tribunal in its exclusive discretion. The issues were completely at large. Comments made by the court while testing submissions during the earlier hearing or the present hearing were not to influence the tribunal; the parties could refer to the two judgments themselves.
4. Panel and expedition. The remitted hearing was directed, so far as reasonably possible and within a reasonable timeframe, to be before the same tribunal members. Previous errors did not automatically disqualify them from reconsidering sanction. Questions concerning costs of and incidental to the hearings before the High Court remained for the High Court.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): In the earlier substantive judgment, [2016] EWHC 3455 (Admin), the court determined the appeal and found matters proved. The present judgment remitted sanction and the tribunal-level costs issue for reconsideration.
2. Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: The original tribunal decision was the subject of the appeal, but its citation and the precise orders are not stated in the judgment.