Lindsay v Solicitors Regulation Authority

An appellate court should interfere with a specialist disciplinary tribunal’s case-management decision only cautiously. An application to stay or adjourn on medical grounds must be supported by proper medical evidence addressing the person’s ability to participate and any reasonable adjustments required. In deciding whether to proceed in a respondent’s absence, fairness to the respondent remains paramount, but the tribunal must also consider the regulator’s interests, the public interest, delay, and the respondent’s duty to engage with the disciplinary process. Where reliable independent evidence establishes that participation is possible with suitable adjustments, and the respondent voluntarily declines to participate or provide relevant evidence, proceeding in the respondent’s absence may be lawful. The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a solicitor and managing director of Tandem Law, appealed against findings by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal that he had committed misconduct and dishonesty. He had been struck off the Roll and ordered to pay substantial costs.

The appeal challenged the Tribunal’s refusal to stay or adjourn the disciplinary proceedings on medical grounds and its decision to proceed in his absence. The appellant relied on serious cardiac disease, anxiety and stress. The Tribunal had obtained independent cardiological evidence and had offered the possibility of reasonable adjustments, but the appellant declined a directed psychiatric assessment and did not attend the substantive hearing.

The central issues were whether the Tribunal had exercised its discretion lawfully and whether proceeding in the appellant’s absence caused procedural unfairness.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the High Court considered whether the Tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. The appeal proceeded by way of review. A rehearing was unnecessary, and specialist tribunal findings and case-management decisions were not to be disturbed lightly.

2. An application for a medical stay or adjournment required proper medical evidence. The Tribunal had a wide case-management discretion, subject to the need to avoid injustice where refusal would have severe consequences. The evidence had to address the person’s ability to instruct representatives, attend, give evidence and be cross-examined, together with any reasonable adjustments that could permit participation.

3. In deciding whether to proceed in a respondent’s absence, the Tribunal had to consider all the circumstances. Fairness to the respondent was a prime consideration, but fairness to the regulator and the public interest in effective disciplinary proceedings were also relevant. The respondent’s professional responsibility to engage with the regulatory process, the seriousness of the allegations, delay, the interests of any co-respondent and the availability of reasonable adjustments could properly be taken into account.

4. The Tribunal was entitled to require independent medical evidence. Professor Hart’s evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant could participate, provided severe stress was managed. The Tribunal could provide regular breaks, permit participation by video link and allow legal representation. The appellant’s lengthy and detailed correspondence demonstrated an ability to engage with the proceedings, while his refusal to file an Answer, provide a witness statement, undergo the directed psychiatric assessment or supply updated medical evidence supported the conclusion that he had voluntarily absented himself.

5. The later GP and hospital records did not alter the position. They did not establish that the appellant was unable to participate or that the Tribunal’s decision would have been different had they been available. The Tribunal’s refusal to stay or adjourn and its decision to proceed in the appellant’s absence were lawful.

1. Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: found misconduct and dishonesty proved, struck the appellant off the Roll and ordered him to pay costs of £108,371.65.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the Tribunal’s findings, sanction and costs order.