TONY NORMAN GUISE v SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY

The appellant appealed under section 49(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 against a Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal decision to strike him off and order costs following findings that he made unauthorised transfers from two entities and that his conduct was dishonest in respect of the 2015 transfers. The High Court applied the well-established appellate standard that an appeal must show a decision no reasonable tribunal could have reached, and considered alleged legal error, demonstrable misunderstanding of evidence, and critical findings unsupported by the evidence.

The court rejected challenges based on Gestmin, holding that the passage relied on did not bind the Tribunal and that the SDT was entitled to assess witness recollection against the whole evidential matrix. The judge rejected the submission that CLAN was a shadow director of CCS under section 251 Companies Act 2006, accepting the Tribunal’s assessment that the material showed a client–contractor relationship rather than direction and control of the company; the Tribunal’s brief reasons were adequate for Article 6 purposes. The court upheld adverse inferences drawn from the appellant’s refusal to give evidence, accepted the SDT’s findings on witness credibility and on the provenance and use of funds, and dismissed all grounds of appeal.

This is an appeal by Mr Tony Guise from a Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal judgment (dated 25 January 2021, handed down 26 February 2021) which found that he made unauthorised transfers from CLAN Commercial Services Limited and from his firm's client account, breached SRA Principles and the SRA Accounts Rules, and that his conduct in relation to the 2015 transfers was dishonest. The SDT ordered that he be struck off and pay costs.

Parties and posture: The appellant, formerly an experienced solicitor, represented himself on appeal. The Solicitors Regulation Authority represented the respondent. The appeal proceeded under the statutory right of appeal in the Solicitors Act 1974.

Nature of the application/relief sought: An appeal against the SDT’s findings of liability (fact-finding and dishonesty). The appellant accepted that, if liability findings stood, the sanction could not be challenged.

Issues before the court:

• whether the SDT materially erred in law by failing to apply Gestmin or otherwise misapplying principles about reliance on witness recollection;
• whether CLAN should be treated as a shadow director of CCS (Companies Act 2006, s.251) so as to authorise the transfers;
• whether the SDT made critical factual errors, misunderstood or failed to consider relevant evidence (including the 2014/2015 transfers, the so-called Promise, the bank mandate, ownership of funds, use of money, and the nine emails in the Client A strand);
• whether Article 6 required further reasons from the Tribunal; and
• whether the SDT should have given weight to decisions of the SRA Adjudication Panel and the Compensation Fund adjudicator.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions: The court reviewed the high threshold for interfering with credibility findings and specialist tribunals' evaluative judgments. It concluded that Gestmin did not bind the SDT’s approach; there was no legal error in relying on oral evidence where appropriate and making credibility assessments after testing witnesses. On the shadow-director contention, the judge applied the statutory test in section 251 and Millett J’s criteria in Re Hydrodam, agreeing with the SDT that the contemporaneous documents and witness evidence did not establish the degree of direction and control required. The court found the SDT’s reasoning adequate for Article 6 purposes and rejected claims of selective reasoning or material omission. The judge accepted the SDT’s adverse inferences from the appellant’s refusal to give evidence and its findings on traces of funds and some personal expenditure. Peripheral numeric and drafting slips in the SDT judgment were not material. The Adjudication Panel and Compensation Fund decisions were held to be of limited relevance given the SDT’s advantage of oral testimony. The court dismissed the appeal in full.

Appeal dismissed. The High Court held that the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal did not commit an error of law or make demonstrable misunderstandings or critical fact-findings unsupported by evidence. The SDT was entitled to its credibility assessments, to draw adverse inferences from the appellant's refusal to give evidence, and to reject the shadow director and other causation/ownership arguments; its reasons were adequate under Article 6.

Appeal from a decision of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal (Judgment dated 25 January 2021; handed down 26 February 2021) which ordered that the appellant be struck off and pay costs. The appeal was brought to the High Court by way of section 49(1) Solicitors Act 1974 and determined in the Administrative Court as [2022] EWHC 124 (Admin), Case No CO/1078/2021.