Dentons UK and Middle East LLP v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd

Where a regulator brings disciplinary proceedings before the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal, its regulatory role may justify a costs approach different from ordinary civil litigation. That rationale does not generally extend to an appeal. Once the regulator has the benefit of the tribunal’s determination and participates in an appeal, its position is more akin to that of an ordinary litigant. The normal costs-shifting approach therefore applies, subject to any special circumstances. A court making an order for payment on account should identify a fair estimate of likely recovery, allowing a margin for error. The amount should reflect what it is reasonable to impose on the paying party, rather than simply the successful party’s actual expenditure.

Dentons appealed against a decision of Lang J in the Administrative Court, which had itself arisen from proceedings before the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. In the substantive appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed Dentons’ appeal, quashed the tribunal’s decision and remitted the matter for determination under a different test: [2026] EWCA Civ 508.

The present judgment concerned the costs of the appeal to Lang J and the further appeal to the Court of Appeal. The SRA argued that its regulatory status meant that no adverse costs order should be made. The central issue was whether the costs principle applicable before the tribunal also governed appeals.

1. Costs on appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the principle in Baxendale-Walker v Law Society [2007] EWCA Civ 233, that costs should not ordinarily follow the event against a regulator before the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal, does not extend to appeals from the tribunal. The Court was bound by Wingate v Solicitors Regulation Authority, which correctly held that parties in the Administrative Court enter a costs-shifting regime under CPR r 44.2. The same approach applies to the further appeal.
2. The reason is functional. Before the tribunal, the regulator’s responsibility to bring properly justified complaints in the public interest may make exposure to adverse costs have a chilling effect. On appeal, the regulator has the benefit of the tribunal’s determination and is challenging it or defending the appellate position. Its position is then more akin to that of an ordinary civil litigant.
3. The Court rejected the SRA’s reliance on the later costs decision in Baxendale-Walker v Law Society [2007] EWCA Civ 820. Lord Phillips CJ’s comments were not binding on the Court of Appeal and, in any event, the relevant reasoning was obiter because the costs order rested largely on the petitioner’s dishonesty. They did not displace Wingate.
4. Dentons was substantially successful in the appeals, although the case had been remitted for determination under a different test. The appropriate order was that the SRA pay 65% of Dentons’ costs in both courts, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. For a payment on account, the court should make a fair estimate of likely recovery with a margin for error: Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone [2015] EWHC 566. Dentons’ expenditure was not itself the measure of recoverable costs. The SRA was ordered to pay £200,000 within 21 days on account of the total costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In this costs judgment, the SRA was ordered to pay 65% of Dentons’ costs in both appeals and £200,000 on account. In the substantive judgment, Dentons’ appeal had been allowed, the decision of the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal quashed and the matter remitted under a different test: [2026] EWCA Civ 508.
• High Court, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Lang J had decided an appeal arising from the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings. The citation of that decision is not stated in the judgment.
• Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal: The tribunal’s decision was later quashed and remitted by the Court of Appeal. Its citation is not stated in the judgment.