Raj Rajan Mariaddan v Solicitors Regulation

An appeal from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal is ordinarily by way of review. The High Court should not interfere with factual or evaluative findings unless the decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural irregularity, including a critical evidential error or a conclusion that cannot reasonably be explained or justified.

A disciplinary pleading must give fair notice of the allegations and the case to be met. It need not identify every item of evidence or every inference relied upon, provided the respondent understood the allegation and had a proper opportunity to answer it. The tribunal may examine the surrounding evidence and draw reasonable inferences as to dishonesty.

The appellant, a solicitor, appealed against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision finding most of eight allegations proved, finding misconduct, striking him from the Roll and making a costs order. The allegations concerned misleading statements about his finances and employment, inaccurate answers on a professional indemnity insurance proposal form, failure to maintain qualifying insurance and practising without such insurance.

A preliminary issue arose because the appellant was an undischarged bankrupt. The court also considered the proper appellate approach, the adequacy of the Rule 12 Statement, the SDT’s findings on dishonesty and integrity, and whether the evidence established that the firm lacked valid insurance.

1. Standing. The appellant was entitled to pursue the appeal despite his bankruptcy. Disciplinary proceedings concern the personal and professional conduct of the regulated individual, are exercised in the public interest and do not ordinarily vest in the trustee in bankruptcy. The judgment and disciplinary consequences were not enforceable against the bankrupt’s estate, apart from costs.
2. Appellate approach. Under section 49(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 and CPR 52.21, the appeal was by way of review. The court would not interfere merely because it might have reached a different conclusion. Intervention required a critical finding with no evidential basis, a demonstrable misunderstanding or failure to consider relevant evidence, an error of principle, or a conclusion that could not reasonably be explained or justified. Particular caution was required because the SDT was a specialist tribunal that had heard and evaluated the witnesses.
3. Pleading and fairness. The Rule 12 Statement sufficiently identified the allegations and gave the appellant notice of the case, including the dishonesty allegations. The SDT was entitled to consider the documents and surrounding circumstances, including material not repeated in the formal allegation, when deciding whether the pleaded statements were careless, misleading or dishonest. The appellant had been cross-examined and had a proper opportunity to respond.
4. Dishonesty and integrity. The SDT correctly applied the two-stage test in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67: ascertain the person’s actual knowledge or belief as to the facts, then apply the objective standards of ordinary decent people. It also correctly treated professional integrity as requiring adherence to the ethical standards of the profession and more than mere honesty.
5. Application. The SDT was entitled to infer dishonesty from the appellant’s altered statement that he had no bank account, his representations about income and unemployment, and his inaccurate insurance answers. A misleading statement did not require proof that the recipient was actually misled. The evidence also supported the findings that the firm lacked qualifying insurance and that the appellant continued practising while aware of that position.
6. The appeal was dismissed. No appealable error, serious procedural irregularity or unjust result was established.

• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: Found seven of eight allegations proved, found misconduct, struck the appellant from the Roll and ordered costs of approximately £31,000.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the appeal and upheld the SDT’s findings.