Farid El Diwany v Solicitors Regulation Authority

An appeal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 proceeds by way of review, not rehearing. The court interferes only for legal or factual error, an unreasonable exercise of discretion, or serious procedural irregularity. A restoration application cannot reopen the decision that struck the solicitor off. The applicant must provide evidence addressing rehabilitation, insight, employment or training history, future intentions and, where relevant, suitability for legal work. Public confidence in the profession is central. A disciplinary tribunal need not disclose provisional views or engage in dialogue enabling a party to participate in its deliberations. Recusal is governed by the fair-minded and informed observer test; a panel’s religion is not, without more, a legitimate basis for alleging bias.

The appellant, a solicitor struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in December 2019, applied in August 2021 to be restored to the Roll. The Tribunal refused the application and rejected his application for recusal of the panel. He appealed under section 49(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974, challenging the refusal of restoration, the recusal decision, the requirement for employment and suitability evidence, the Tribunal’s treatment of the earlier disciplinary proceedings, and alleged procedural unfairness.

The appeal required the court to determine whether the Tribunal’s order was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity, and whether the restoration application impermissibly sought to reopen concluded disciplinary findings.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal was by way of review, not rehearing. The order could be overturned only for an error of law or fact, an exercise of discretion outside the generous ambit of reasonable decision-making, or serious procedural or other irregularity.
2. The Tribunal was entitled, and required, to proceed on the basis that the 2019 striking-off decision and the unsuccessful appeal from it remained valid. The restoration application could not be used to revisit the Norwegian convictions, alleged Islamophobic abuse, or the merits of the earlier disciplinary decision.
3. Restoration under section 47(2)(f) of the Solicitors Act 1974 requires an assessment of whether the applicant is now fit and proper to return to the Roll. Relevant considerations include rehabilitation, insight into the conduct leading to striking-off, compliance with applicable law and regulation, employment and training history, future employment intentions, and the effect of restoration on public confidence. An application made within six years is likely to be premature absent the most exceptional circumstances.
4. The Tribunal was entitled to require evidence of employment and evidence from solicitors addressing suitability for legal work. Bare assertion that the applicant was fit and proper was insufficient.
5. The recusal decision was plainly correct. The fair-minded and informed observer test applied. The panel’s lack of Muslim members, without evidence of a real possibility of bias, did not establish actual or apparent bias.
6. The Tribunal was required to hear the parties with an open mind and sufficient engagement to understand their cases. It was not required to disclose preliminary views, answer questions from a party, or conduct a dialogue allowing that party to participate in private deliberations.
7. All six grounds were without merit. The appeal was dismissed, costs of £13,000 were summarily assessed in favour of the SRA, and directions were made for consideration of a civil restraint order.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 49(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 dismissed. The court upheld the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s refusal of restoration.
• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: restoration application refused on 18 November 2021; written judgment dated 14 December 2021.