Harry Francis Cottam v Solicitors Regulation Authority

An appeal from a specialist professional disciplinary tribunal proceeds by way of review unless the interests of justice require a rehearing. The High Court should show particular restraint before interfering with factual or evaluative findings made by the tribunal, especially where it heard and assessed the witnesses. Intervention is justified only for an identifiable error, such as a material error of law, a critical finding unsupported by the evidence, a demonstrable misunderstanding or failure to consider relevant evidence, or a conclusion that cannot reasonably be explained or justified. Similar respect applies to sanction. A finding that a solicitor acted dishonestly will ordinarily justify striking the solicitor from the Roll, subject to exceptional circumstances.

The appellant, a solicitor and sole director of a small incorporated practice, appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision to strike him from the Roll and order him to pay £4,000 in costs.

The Tribunal found proved that he had caused or allowed improper transfers of client money to the office account and had acted dishonestly. It found unproved the allegation that he had prepared or caused false invoices to be prepared. The appeal challenged the Tribunal’s factual findings, its treatment of the appellant’s evidence and interview, and its conclusions concerning responsibility for the transfers. The appellant did not pursue a separate appeal against sanction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal under section 49 proceeded by way of review. Under CPR 52.21, the court could allow it only if the Tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.
2. The High Court should exercise particular caution when reviewing findings of fact by a specialist regulatory tribunal. It should not substitute its own assessment of credibility, reliability or evidential weight. Intervention requires an identifiable error, including a critical finding without evidential basis, a demonstrable misunderstanding or failure to consider relevant evidence, or a conclusion that cannot reasonably be explained or justified. The Tribunal’s decision must be read as a whole, and the absence of reference to particular evidence does not establish that it was ignored.
3. Those principles applied with particular force because the Tribunal had heard and cross-examined the appellant and the principal witness. The Tribunal was entitled to rely on the appellant’s admissions in interview and cross-examination, his role as sole director, COLP and COFA, his responsibility for authorising transfers, and his failure promptly to implicate or dismiss the cashier whom he later blamed.
4. The Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the appellant knew of the improper transfers and, by allowing them to continue, caused them to occur. Its rejection of the appellant’s account of his mental health, the alleged role of the cashier, the asserted vulnerability of the internet banking system and the significance of his re-examination evidence disclosed no reviewable error.
5. The Tribunal was also entitled to find dishonesty by applying the two-stage test in [2017] UKSC 67. The appellant did not appeal separately against sanction. In any event, specialist Tribunal sentencing decisions attract considerable respect, and striking off is ordinarily the appropriate sanction for solicitor dishonesty save in exceptional circumstances.
6. There was no basis for concluding that the Tribunal’s decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. The Tribunal’s findings and sanction therefore stood.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision of 26 October 2023.
• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: found improper transfers of client money and dishonesty proved, struck the appellant from the Roll and ordered payment of £4,000 costs.