Sheikh Asif Salam v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd
[2024] EWHC 547 (Admin)
Raj Rajan Mariaddan v Solicitors Regulation
3 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 207 (Admin)
High Court
A solicitor was struck off for dishonesty. He appealed, saying the rules weren't followed properly. The judge disagreed, saying the evidence showed the solicitor was dishonest and the appeal was unsuccessful.
Key Facts
- •Raj Rajan Mariaddan, admitted to the Roll in 1995, was struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) for misconduct.
- •The SRA investigated Mariaddan's firm, John Street Solicitors LLP, leading to his suspension and subsequent striking off.
- •Eight allegations of misconduct were made against Mariaddan, with all but one being proven by the SDT.
- •Mariaddan appealed the SDT's decision to the High Court, raising issues of pleading adequacy and the Tribunal's findings.
- •A preliminary issue concerned Mariaddan's bankruptcy status and his right to pursue the appeal.
- •The allegations involved misleading statements to another firm regarding a Legal Aid debt, misleading answers on a PII insurance application, lack of valid PII insurance, and practicing without valid insurance.
Legal Principles
A bankrupt's estate vests in the Trustee upon appointment, encompassing 'all property belonging to or vested in the bankrupt'.
Insolvency Act 1986, sections 306(1), 283(1), 436
Bankruptcy doesn't affect actions personal to the bankrupt (e.g., defamation, assault), but other causes of action vest in the Trustee.
Heath v Tang [1993] 1 WLR 1421
In disciplinary proceedings against a solicitor, the matter is sufficiently personal to the bankrupt to allow them to appeal.
Addison v London European Securities Limited [2022] EWHC 1077 (Ch)
Allegations of dishonesty must be clearly and properly made out in the statement, with precise identification of conduct and why it's objectionable.
Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019, Rule 12; Constantinides v The Law Society [2006] EWHC 725 (Admin)
An appellate court should not interfere with findings of fact unless the conclusion is 'plainly wrong'.
Metcalfe v SRA [2021] EWHC 2271 (Admin); SRA v Day [2018] EWHC 2726 (Admin); Martin v SRA [2020] EWHC 3525 (Admin)
The test for dishonesty is that set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC.
Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The High Court found the SDT's decision was not appealably wrong. The Court upheld the SDT's findings of dishonesty, rejecting Mariaddan's arguments regarding pleading deficiencies and the Tribunal's interpretation of evidence.