Venkateshwarlu Bandla v Solicitors Regulation Authority

In an application to appeal out of time, the court must apply the Mitchell/Denton approach: identify the seriousness and significance of the default, determine why it occurred, and evaluate all the circumstances, including the interests of justice and finality. A claim that mental ill-health caused the delay requires evidence addressing both the condition during the relevant period and its causal effect on the failure to appeal. Guidance in J v K applies in this context. Long delay, regulatory finality and public protection may outweigh the applicant’s position. An appeal may also be struck out as an abuse of process where formal grounds repeatedly rely on fake authorities. The court refused an extension of time, struck out the grounds of appeal and refused permission to appeal.

The appellant sought an extension of time to bring a statutory appeal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision to strike him off the roll. The SDT decision was dated 22 June 2017, while the appeal notice was lodged on 10 October 2024.

The appellant relied principally on alleged mental ill-health, disputed sending of the SDT’s statement of reasons, service issues, procedural unfairness and the merits of the disciplinary findings. The court first determined whether the statement of reasons had been sent for the purposes of CPR PD 52D paragraph 3.3A, then considered the delay, the reasons for default, all the circumstances and the apparent strength of the proposed appeal.

1. Extension of time. The SDT’s written judgment was sent to the appellant on 22 June 2017 by letter to an address in India. Under CPR PD 52D paragraph 3.3A, time therefore began to run then. The rule requires sending, not formal personal service under the Hague Service Convention 1965. The court accepted the approach in GMC v Brauwers, Sancheti v SRA and GMC v Adeogba.
2. The delay of 7 years 2 months and 26 days was plainly serious and significant. Applying the approach identified in Taylor v SRA, including the Mitchell/Denton principles, the court considered the seriousness and significance of the default, the reasons for it and all the circumstances, including the overriding objective, the interests of justice and the public interest in finality in regulatory proceedings.
3. Following J v K, evidence was required both to establish mental ill-health during the relevant periods and to show that it explained or excused the failure to appeal. The evidence showed some mental ill-health but did not establish a condition so severe, over the necessary periods, that the appellant was unable to understand or communicate or unable to take steps to appeal. The claimed causal explanation was therefore not made out.
4. The proposed appeal had no sufficient apparent strength to justify extending time. The SRA had made extensive and reasonable attempts to contact the appellant. Service of the relevant disciplinary documents at the last known address, including delivery to and acknowledgement by his mother, was sufficient under the applicable disciplinary rules. The SDT was entitled to proceed in the appellant’s absence once satisfied that notice of the hearing had been served.
5. The appellant’s formal grounds repeatedly cited non-existent authorities, maintained those citations after they were challenged, and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. That conduct constituted an abuse of the process of the court. The grounds of appeal were struck out. The extension application was dismissed, indemnity costs of £24,727.20 were ordered to be paid within 21 days, and permission to appeal was refused because there was no realistic prospect of success and no sufficiently important point.

The appellant lodged a statutory appeal under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 on 10 October 2024, together with an application for an extension of time. The Administrative Court dismissed that application, struck out the grounds of appeal and refused permission to appeal.