The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s second prosecution for ‘SLAPP-like’ behaviour will be heard seven years after the alleged misconduct following an adjournment decision yesterday. Following a case management hearing, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal granted an application by the regulator to vacate a five-day substantive hearing against media lawyer Christopher Mark Hutchings due to the health condition of a ‘central witness’. The witness, known as 'Solicitor G', has not been named.
Hutchings, of London firm Hamlins LLP, is alleged to have made assertions which were false and/or misleading in a telephone call with Solicitor G in October 2018. In the phone call, the SRA claims Hutchings said he had spoken to counsel and been told his client had a strong case for bringing contempt proceedings, or words to that effect. Hutchings, admitted in 1992, denies all wrongdoing.
The prosecution will be the second by the SRA over alleged conduct relating to so-called SLAPPs - the use of legal threats to curb public debate.
Paul Ozin KC, for the SRA, told the tribunal yesterday that ‘It is abundantly clear that Solicitor G is completely central to the case. It is apparent from the writing of the allegation and the narrative within the Rule 12 statement that the case turns upon…solicitor G’s recollection of the relevant conversation and his reliability of his note…alongside contemporaneous or near contemporaneous documentation.’
Read more:
Ozin added that the SRA ‘respectfully agreed’ there was the risk of the case collapsing if Solicitor G were not able to give evidence and be cross examined. He said if the case were to proceed in the absence of Solicitor G it would ‘have an affect which is analogous to a terminating ruling’.
He added: ‘I put it as strongly as that. Were we forced to go ahead we would have to consider seriously whether we were in a position to do so. We say that would be unfair, inappropriate and disproportionate.’
Ben Hubble KC, for Hutchings, told the tribunal that Hutchings ‘for his part is ready for the substantive hearing’ and opposed the SRA’s application.
Hubble said: ‘The SRA’s application is not supported by any medical or factual evidence. The tribunal is not to entertain to what amounts to a request for an open-ended adjournment of indeterminate length. It must be a very real risk the tribunal may think the likelihood that an adjournment would be pointless in any event.’
He added that ‘in all circumstances’ an adjournment would be ‘unfair or unjust’ on Hutchings taking into consideration the disruption of costs, his six witnesses, his legal team and the ‘potential loss’ of his chosen counsel. There ‘must be a real risk we would be into 2026' if the panel were to allow the regulator’s application, he said.
‘That should not be acceptable in any circumstances but particularly unfair when these allegations turn on what was or was not said on a telephone call in October 2018 – six and a half years ago.’
Hubble told the panel if the case were to be adjourned then Hutchings' chosen counsel would be unavailable until 2026. An adjournment would add to Hutchings costs, which ‘are already likely to be in six figures because the counsel team have been briefed and preparing for this hearing’.
He said: ‘[Hutchings] is entitled to bringing sleepless nights to an end and clear his name at this substantive hearing.’
The panel, which retired for one hour and 45 minutes, allowed the SRA’s appeal and fixed a new substantive hearing date for October 2025 and a case management hearing in April.
Granting the adjournment, Mr R Nicholas, the panel chair, said: ‘This has been a long and difficult decision and our reasons will be put in writing…in due course.’
- Meanwhiile, in a reply to a report by a House of Lords committee, the government confirmed it had no plans to legislate against SLAPPs in the current parliamentary session.
