Ogun, R (On the Application Of) v Solicitors Regulatory Authority

An application for a higher-courts advocacy qualification involves two stages. The solicitor must first obtain a certificate of eligibility and, after successfully completing the required advocacy assessment, make a further application for the formal grant of the qualification. Completion of the assessment alone does not confer rights of audience.

Where regulations impose a deadline for applications, the deadline applies to the application for the formal grant unless the regulatory scheme indicates otherwise. Guidance describing the application as being in two parts may assist in construing the regulations. A litigant’s innocent administrative mistake does not create the qualification retrospectively. The claim was dismissed.

The claimant had been admitted as a solicitor and applied in 2005 for the higher-courts civil advocacy qualification governed by the Higher Courts Qualification Regulations 2000. He received a certificate of eligibility and later passed the advocacy assessment, but did not make a further application to the Law Society for the formal grant of the qualification.

After the issue arose in unrelated proceedings, the Solicitors Regulatory Authority decided that he was not entitled to exercise civil higher rights of audience. The claimant sought judicial review, alleging that the decision was irrational and incompatible with the regulations, and advanced consequential human-rights and defamation complaints. Permission had been granted after an earlier refusal of interim relief. The central issue was whether completion of the assessment, without a further formal application, conferred the qualification.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant had not obtained the higher-courts civil advocacy qualification and was not entitled to exercise the associated rights of audience.
2. Regulation 6(3) of the Higher Courts Qualification Regulations 2000 referred to the application for the formal grant of the qualification, not merely the initial application for eligibility to undertake the advocacy assessment. The claimant’s argument was also fatally undermined by the amendment changing the deadline in regulation 6(3) from 1 November 2005 to 31 December 2006, with later amendments extending it further.
3. The regulatory scheme clearly contemplated two applications. The first sought a certificate of eligibility. The second, made after successful completion of the mandatory assessment and satisfaction of other conditions, sought the formal award of the qualification. The guidance notes supported that construction. The court admitted a June 2004 explanatory document after the claimant had himself requested production of an earlier version of the guidance, and considered it highly likely that the missing version had conveyed the same requirement.
4. Passing the assessment did not itself amount to the grant of the qualification. The claimant had never applied to the Law Society for the formal award and had therefore exercised higher-court rights of audience without the necessary qualification, albeit through an innocent administrative mistake.
5. The remaining grounds, including the human-rights ground, failed consequentially. Permission to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and there was no other compelling reason for it to be heard.
6. Costs followed the event under CPR 44.2. Permission to bring the claim did not justify departing from that rule, and costs of £18,000 including VAT were awarded to the defendant.

The judgment itself describes earlier procedural steps:

• High Court (Administrative Court): Chowdhury J refused interim relief and considered the claim unarguable. Laing J later granted permission on the basis that the grounds were arguable. Mr Justice Mostyn dismissed the substantive claim, refused permission to appeal and awarded the defendant £18,000 in costs.