Santers Solicitors Ltd & Anor v The Law Society of England & Wales & Anor

Applications to expedite proceedings challenging intervention into a solicitor’s practice are inherently urgent because intervention may close the practice before the challenge is determined. The court applies four considerations: whether there is good reason for expedition; whether expedition would interfere with the proper administration of justice; prejudice to the other party; and any other special considerations, including the applicant’s conduct. Delay in seeking expedition remains relevant, but has less weight where the application itself is inherently urgent. Expedition should be ordered where the case can be heard promptly with proper directions, without unacceptable interference with other litigants, and without material prejudice to the respondent.

The claimants brought a Part 8 claim under paragraph 6(4) of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974, seeking withdrawal of an intervention notice affecting the claimant solicitor’s practice and consequential relief.

The intervention notice was dated 26 July 2024. The claim was issued on 2 August 2024, but the application for expedition was not made until 7 October 2024. The claimants sought a hearing before the expiry of a suspended practising certificate on 30 October 2024. The issue was whether the proceedings should be expedited.

1. Application granted. The court directed expedition and consequential directions, with the parties invited to agree a minute of order.
2. The applicable principles were those identified by Lord Neuberger in WL Gore & Associates GmbH v Geox Spa [2008] EWCA Civ 622 at [25]: good reason for expedition; interference with the proper administration of justice; prejudice to the other party; and other special considerations, including the applicant’s conduct.
3. There was good reason for expedition. The nature of an application challenging intervention supplied inherent urgency. Intervention commonly has the effect of closing the solicitor’s practice, so any grounds of challenge should be determined at the earliest possible time to reduce the risk that judgment will come too late to save the practice.
4. Expedition would not ordinarily interfere with the proper administration of justice where the court can give proper directions for evidence, accommodate the hearing sought, and avoid unacceptable interference with other urgent cases. The appropriate listing category was B, and a two-day hearing could be accommodated during the week commencing 11 November 2024.
5. The respondent accepted that the claim should be dealt with promptly and could prepare for the proposed hearing. The concern about the expiry of the practising certificate did not create the adverse impact initially feared, in light of the respondent’s explanation.
6. The claimants’ delay and procedural mistakes remained relevant. The Chancery Guide required an application at the earliest opportunity, and delay could undermine confidence in the claimed urgency. In this case, however, the delay did not weigh heavily because the application was inherently urgent and was partly driven by a misunderstanding of the required procedure.

First-instance application for expedition. No earlier decision is stated in the judgment.