Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sheikh

On a submission of no case to answer in professional disciplinary proceedings, the evidence must be taken at its highest. The allegation should proceed if, on one possible view of the evidence, a properly directed tribunal could properly find it proved to the criminal standard. The tribunal must assess circumstantial and cumulative evidence holistically. It must not resolve disputed factual issues, reject potentially significant documentary analysis, or make favourable findings for the respondent at the halfway stage. A solicitor who signs a bill of costs cannot avoid responsibility merely by asserting reliance on costs draftsmen. An appellate court reviewing an SDT decision conducts a review rather than a rehearing, while showing appropriate respect for the specialist tribunal’s evaluative conclusions.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority appealed against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which accepted a submission of no case to answer after the SRA had presented its case. The proceedings concerned allegations that a solicitor had caused an inflated bill of costs to be submitted to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), failed to provide relevant invoices and other documents, and had acted dishonestly.

The SDT dismissed all allegations and ordered the SRA to pay costs. The appeal was limited to allegations concerning the bill of costs, omission of documents and dishonesty. The central questions were whether the SDT had applied the correct test for a submission of no case to answer and whether it had improperly discounted documentary and investigative evidence.

1. Appeal allowed. The SDT’s decision on the relevant allegations and its costs order were set aside. The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted panel.
2. The appellate court’s role in an appeal from the SDT is by way of review, not rehearing. Appropriate respect must be given to the evaluative conclusions of the specialist panel. That did not, however, prevent intervention where the SDT had applied the wrong legal approach.
3. Under the approach in Galbraith (1981) 73 Cr. App. R 124, a case should be withdrawn only where there is no evidence supporting the allegation, or where the evidence, taken at its highest, is so tenuous that a properly directed tribunal could not properly find the allegation proved. If, on one possible view of the evidence, a properly directed tribunal could convict or find the allegation proved, the matter must proceed.
4. The SDT failed to take the SRA’s case at its highest. It wrongly treated the report of Master Egan QC as inadmissible opinion evidence, although it contained conclusions reached in a judicial investigative capacity from documentary material. It also wrongly rejected Mr Quentin’s analysis as expert evidence, although it was factual evidence based on his analysis of the firm’s records.
5. The SDT improperly made final factual findings favourable to the respondent at the halfway stage. It should not have accepted assertions advanced through correspondence or counsel’s submissions where the respondent could have given evidence and been cross-examined.
6. The evidence had to be assessed holistically. In a circumstantial and cumulative case, the tribunal did not need to be satisfied about every individual strand in isolation. The question was whether the totality of the evidence could support the allegations to the criminal standard.
7. The signature of a solicitor on a bill of costs carries responsibility. Reliance on costs draftsmen does not allow the solicitor to disassociate himself from that responsibility: Gempride Ltd v Bamrah [2018] EWCA Civ 1367.
8. On the evidence taken at its highest, there was a case to answer on the allegations that the bill had been improperly inflated and that relevant invoices and documents had been withheld. The SDT’s conclusion was plainly wrong and demonstrated an inadequate understanding of the proper application of the no-case-to-answer principles.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was allowed. The decision that there was no case to answer on the specified allegations, together with the costs order, was set aside. The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted panel.