Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited v Hon-Ying Amie Tsang
[2024] EWHC 1150 (KB)
Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited v Daniel Whittingham
24 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2981 (Admin)
High Court
A solicitor was struck off and didn't cooperate with the investigation. The court initially gave a low cost order against him. The regulator appealed and won because the court decided the initial low cost order didn't properly account for the solicitor's bad behavior, leading to a much higher cost order against him.
Key Facts
- •The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) appealed a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) costs order of £5,000 against Daniel Whittingham.
- •The SRA claimed £22,200 in costs.
- •Whittingham did not appear at the appeal hearing.
- •The SDT found Whittingham guilty of dishonesty and struck him off the roll.
- •Whittingham failed to engage with the SRA throughout the proceedings, failing to file an answer, statement of means, and attend hearings.
- •The SRA argued that Whittingham's non-engagement forced them to prepare for a two-day hearing, unnecessarily increasing costs.
Legal Principles
Appeals under Section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 are by way of review, not rehearing, unless it's in the interests of justice.
CPR 52.21
The High Court can make any order it thinks fit on appeal under Section 49.
Solicitors Act 1974, Section 49
When deciding costs, the SDT must consider the conduct of the parties, compliance with directions, proportionality of time and costs, and the paying party's means.
Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019, Rule 43(4)
The High Court should only disturb an SDT costs order in rare circumstances, if the tribunal misdirected itself or reached an unreasonable conclusion.
Law Society v. Adcock [2006] EWHC 3212 (Admin)
A professional is under an obligation to engage with their regulator.
GMC v Adeogba [2016] 1 WLR 3867
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The SDT erred in the exercise of its discretion by failing to consider relevant factors under Rule 43(4) of the 2019 Rules, specifically Whittingham's unreasonable conduct and non-compliance with directions.
The SDT's costs order was quashed.
The SDT failed to take into account Whittingham's conduct which necessitated the SRA's preparation for a fully contested hearing, and failed to adequately consider the proportionality of the costs claimed.
The Court assessed costs payable by Whittingham to the SRA at £19,468.
Considering all relevant factors, including the SRA's reasonable preparation for a contested hearing due to Whittingham's non-engagement, and the hourly rates claimed, the court made a deduction to account for the shorter-than-anticipated hearing.