Farrukh Abbas v Solicitors' Regulatory Authority
[2024] EWHC 2775 (Admin)
David Davies v David Greene
21 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3304 (Admin)
High Court
A lawyer was accused of lying in court. A tribunal found he didn't intentionally lie, even though he made mistakes. A higher court agreed, saying the tribunal's decision was reasonable.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Davies appealed the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal's (SDT) dismissal of his disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Greene.
- •The dispute stemmed from a County Court case where Mr. Greene, representing Edwin Coe LLP, successfully sued Mr. Davies for unpaid legal fees.
- •Mr. Davies alleged that Mr. Greene lied in his witness statement and during his testimony in the County Court case, regarding the timeline of their communications and the existence of a break in representation.
- •The SDT considered email exchanges between Mr. Davies and Mr. Greene from November 2008 to November 2009, crucial to determining whether Mr. Greene's evidence was misleading.
- •The SDT found that although Mr. Greene's evidence was inaccurate, it did not constitute lying or dishonesty.
- •The SDT found no substantive work was undertaken to progress the damages claim before November 2009 due to lack of instructions and outstanding fees.
Legal Principles
Appellate court's role is to assess whether the Tribunal was "wrong" (CPR 52.21(3)). An appellate court may only interfere if the trial judge was "plainly wrong", meaning no reasonable judge could have reached that decision. This principle considers material errors of law, critical findings of fact without evidentiary basis, misunderstanding or failure to consider relevant evidence.
CPR 52.21(3), Langford v the Law Society [2002] EWHC 2802, Salsbury v the Law Society [2009] 1WLR 1286, SRA v Day [2018] EWHC 2726 (Admin), SRA v Good [2019] EWHC 817 (Admin), Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41
Breach of SRA Principles 2011 (Principles 1, 2, and 6) requires proof that Mr. Greene lied in his witness statement and/or testimony.
SRA Principles 2011
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The SDT's finding that Mr. Greene did not lie was not plainly wrong. The SDT considered the evidence of ongoing communications and the context of a stayed damages claim, concluding that Mr. Greene's inaccurate evidence stemmed from a genuine belief and inadvertence, not dishonesty or recklessness. The lack of substantive instructions to progress the claim before November 2009 also supported this conclusion. The refusal to award costs to Mr. Davies was also deemed fair.
No procedural impropriety was found in the SDT's refusal to allow Mr. Davies an oral closing speech.
The refusal was not unfair given the short hearing length, the availability of a transcript of Mr. Greene's evidence, and the fact that allowing a closing speech would not have altered the outcome.