Maitland-Hudson v Solicitors Regulation Authority

Procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings is assessed in context. Effective participation depends on the nature and stage of the proceedings, their history, the available adjustments and the evidence about the party’s capacity.

A tribunal may consider its own observations of a litigant’s performance alongside medical evidence. It is not required automatically to accept expert opinion, but must proceed cautiously, give reasons, and remain alert to the possibility that mental illness may be masked. An adjournment on health grounds is discretionary. Further medical directions may be appropriate where the evidence creates a genuine doubt, but they are not invariably required. Appellate intervention is justified only where the decision was unfair, plainly wrong or outside the proper range of reasonable case management.

The appellant, a solicitor, appealed as of right under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against findings of misconduct and dishonesty made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. He had been struck off and ordered to pay costs.

The appeal concerned alleged procedural unfairness. The appellant, acting in person for most of the hearing, relied on depression and anxiety and argued that he had been unable effectively to participate. The Tribunal refused applications to dismiss, stay or adjourn the proceedings, although later medical evidence indicated that he was unfit to represent himself but fit to instruct counsel. The central issues were whether the Tribunal applied the correct test, whether it was entitled to assess the appellant’s actual performance, and whether it should have obtained further expert evidence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s decisions did not involve procedural unfairness or an error of law.
2. The right to a fair hearing under the common law and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is flexible and context-dependent. Effective participation must be assessed by reference to the particular proceedings, including their nature, stage and procedural history. A fair hearing does not necessarily require an oral hearing or any particular procedural form.
3. An adjournment on health grounds is a discretionary case-management decision, but fairness remains central. The appellate question is whether the decision was fair in the circumstances identified and evaluated by the Tribunal. More than one outcome may be fair. Intervention is appropriate where the decision was plainly wrong, involved an error of principle, omitted material considerations, or was otherwise impermissible.
4. The Tribunal was entitled to weigh the medical evidence against the appellant’s actual performance. There is no blanket rule requiring a court to disregard what it sees and hears. However, departure from medical evidence requires caution and reasons, particularly where mental illness may be masked or the litigant may not appreciate his own interests. Solanki v Intercity Telecom Ltd was an extreme case in which the judge had effectively rejected medical evidence without adequate reasons; it did not establish that a tribunal could never assess the evidence for itself.
5. Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth did not require further medical directions whenever a tribunal had doubts. It recognised a discretion to seek further evidence or access to the treating doctor where evidence of unfitness existed but its adequacy or reliability was in doubt. Here, the evidence available on 24 January 2018 did not say that the appellant was unable effectively to participate, and the Tribunal reasonably concluded that it had sufficient material while keeping the issue under review.
6. The Tribunal considered the appellant’s participation, the adjustments made, the extensive preparation already undertaken with lawyers, the procedural stage, the public interest in finality, and the availability of written submissions or legal representation. Its conclusions that the appellant could participate effectively at the relevant earlier stages, and later could instruct counsel, were open to it. There was no obligation to order an indefinite adjournment, fund representation, or require further expert evidence or cross-examination.
7. The Tribunal was also entitled to refuse a repeated application for a general adjournment made late and without material change in circumstances. The disciplinary proceedings therefore continued, and the appeal was dismissed.

• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: found the appellant guilty of misconduct and dishonesty, struck him off the Roll of Solicitors and ordered costs. The appellant appealed as of right under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s decisions.