Dr Katherine Alexander-Theodotou v The Solicitors Regulatory Authority

An appeal from a specialist disciplinary tribunal proceeds by way of review, not rehearing. The appellate court gives appropriate weight to the tribunal’s findings, particularly where it evaluated witnesses, and intervenes only for a plainly wrong or unlawful decision, or a serious procedural or other irregularity.

In dishonesty cases, the tribunal must first determine the individual’s actual subjective knowledge or belief as to the facts. It must then apply the objective standards of ordinary decent people. A belief that a person has a defence to regulatory allegations does not, without more, justify denying the existence of those allegations when an insurer asks about them.

The claimant, a solicitor, appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against findings and sanction imposed by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The Tribunal found that she had dishonestly made false statements and failed to disclose regulatory investigations, disciplinary proceedings and Legal Ombudsman awards in two professional indemnity insurance applications. It struck her from the roll and ordered her to pay costs of £124,830.

The claimant argued that the Rule 12 allegations should have been heard before, or together with, the dishonesty allegations; that late evidence and an adjournment had been wrongly refused; that fresh evidence should be admitted; and that the costs order was excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s findings, sanction and costs decision were upheld on all grounds.
2. An appeal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974, proceeding under CPR 52, is by way of review rather than rehearing. Appropriate weight must be given to the specialist Tribunal’s first-hand assessment of evidence and witnesses. The appellate court should not substitute its own evaluation merely from transcripts and submissions. Intervention is justified where findings are plainly wrong or unlawful, or where there has been a serious procedural or other irregularity.
3. Applying Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd, the Tribunal had to determine first the claimant’s actual subjective knowledge or belief as to the facts, and then whether the conduct was dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary decent people.
4. The claimant’s belief that she had a defence to the regulatory allegations was distinct from any belief that she could deny the existence of the investigations or awards when asked by insurers to disclose them. The Rule 12 allegations therefore did not have to be tried first or simultaneously with the Rule 14 dishonesty allegations.
5. The refusal to adjourn and exclusion of approximately 4,000 pages served in breach of an unless order were within the Tribunal’s case-management discretion. The fresh evidence did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria. The costs award was also within the Tribunal’s discretion.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 was dismissed on all grounds.
• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: On 7 July 2022, the Tribunal found the Rule 14 allegations of dishonesty proved, struck the claimant from the roll, ordered costs of £124,830 and stayed the Rule 12 allegations.