Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited v Hon-Ying Amie Tsang
[2024] EWHC 1150 (KB)
Naim Lone v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd
20 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 349 (Admin)
High Court
A solicitor was found to have mishandled client money, even though no one lost any. He appealed the decision, but the judge agreed with the original ruling. The solicitor made mistakes, broke a court order, and didn't handle a conflict of interest properly. The judge said the punishment fitted the crime.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Lone, a practicing solicitor, appealed a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal's decision under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974.
- •The Tribunal found Mr. Lone mismanaged client funds, breaching the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and SRA Principles 2011.
- •Allegation 1 involved improper transfer of client funds (Client C) due to lack of an operational client account after his firm closed.
- •Allegations 2 and 3 concerned inappropriate collaboration with a suspended solicitor (Person B) on Client D's matter and failure to register a legal charge.
- •The Tribunal imposed an £8,000 fine and £29,359.05 costs.
- •Mr. Lone's appeal challenged the Tribunal's findings of fact, law, and the exercise of discretion in determining the allegations and sanction.
Legal Principles
Appeals under s.49 of the 1974 Act are by way of review, not rehearing. The court will only allow the appeal if the decision was "wrong" or "unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity."
Ali v SRA [2021] EWHC 2709, CPR 52.10, 52.11, 52.21(3)(a) and (b)
A decision is wrong if there's an error of law, fact, or discretion. The court should exercise caution before interfering with a tribunal's findings, especially where oral evidence was considered. The high threshold requires a critical finding with no evidentiary basis, a misunderstanding/failure to consider relevant evidence, or a conclusion no reasonable judge would reach.
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Day [2018] EWHC 2726 (Admin), Solicitors Regulation Authority v Good [2019] EWHC 817 (Admin), Naqvi Judgment, Solicitors Regulation Authority v Siaw [2019] EWHC 2737 (Admin), Martin v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2020] EWHC 3525 (Admin)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found no error of law or fact in the Tribunal's decision. While acknowledging Mr. Lone's good intentions and the lack of actual client loss, the court upheld the Tribunal's findings of impropriety due to breaches of court orders and inadequate handling of conflicts of interest. The sanction was deemed proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct.
Similar Cases
General Legal Council v Michael Lorne (Jamaica)
[2024] UKPC 12
Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited v George Fahim Sa’id
[2024] EWHC 1619 (Admin)
Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited v Daniel Whittingham
[2023] EWHC 2981 (Admin)
Victor Nwosu v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd
[2023] EWHC 2405 (KB)