A former solicitor, having been struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, failed to appeal within the required timeframe under s 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974. More than seven years later, he applied to the court for an extension of time to appeal the decision. In support of this application and the proposed appeal, he cited numerous legal authorities. However, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) discovered that many of the cases referenced were fictitious and could not be found in any legal database.
Decision:
The High Court refused both the application for an extension of time and the appeal itself. The grounds of appeal were struck out as an abuse of process, and the claimant was ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis.
Key Findings:
Use of Fake Authorities – Abuse of Process:
The court held that the repeated citation of non-existent legal cases by the claimant—who had previously practised as a solicitor—was a serious affront to the integrity of judicial proceedings.
These false citations were included in formal court documents, were never withdrawn or explained, and remained even after the SRA had drawn attention to them. This behaviour amounted to an abuse of process and justified striking out the appeal (paras 26, 39, 48, 53, 56).
Serious Delay in Appealing:
- The delay of over seven years was found to be “very serious and very significant.” The court considered the overarching interests of justice, the public interest in the finality of regulatory decisions, and the fact that the delay did not impair the claimant’s fundamental right to appeal. The court concluded that an extension of time was not appropriate in the circumstances.
- Indemnity Costs:
Given the claimant’s misconduct—particularly the deliberate citation of fabricated legal authorities—the court awarded indemnity costs to the SRA to reflect its disapproval and the seriousness of the abuse (para 55). - Refusal of Permission to Appeal:
The court also refused the claimant’s request for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, finding no realistic prospect of success or issue of sufficient importance.
Conclusion:
The case illustrates the courts’ intolerance for deceptive conduct—particularly the fabrication of legal authorities—by any litigant, and especially by former legal professionals. It reaffirms the principle that procedural abuse, even in the context of appeals, will be met with decisive and punitive responses, including the denial of procedural indulgences and the imposition of indemnity costs.
source: Bailii.org
Leave a Reply