A Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal costs order of £5,000 was appealed today in the first such challenge by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Describing the order as ‘astonishing’, the SRA said the correct figure should have been £18,500.  

The High Court heard that the SDT struck off solicitor Daniel Whittingham for dishonesty, following a hearing earlier this year in which Whittingham did not appear and was not represented. The SRA had sought costs of £18,500 plus VAT and appealed the SDT’s order. Whittingham was neither present not represented at the appeal.

Benjamin Tankel, for the SRA, said the costs order was wrong. ‘I am not suggesting for a moment this was a very complicated case but it is not the most simplistic case,’ he said. ‘These were serious allegations and needed to be dealt with properly whether or not Mr Whittingham was fully engaged.

‘The £5,000 decision that the tribunal made was pretty astonishing….very far below anything that the SRA has previous experience of in a case like this.’

Tankel told Neil Cameron KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, that the notional hourly rate for the £18,500 costs sought was a ‘reasonable’ £180-£240. The court heard that the £5,000 included VAT and left just £200 for solicitors’ costs.

Tankel said that the SDT did not take into account Whittingham’s unreasonable conduct in engaging with the SRA or tribunal. ‘We recognise costs appeals are difficult and the court will be very reluctant to interfere in the decision below for good reason.’

Saying that the SRA has never previously brought a costs-only appeal, he added: 'We at the SRA regard the circumstances of this case as exceptional.'

The £5,000 figure 'seems utterly irrational', he said. Reasons given in the SDT judgment 'are not really connected to the eventual decision to award just £5,000. It is very hard to join the dots between those reasons and the £5,000.’

He added: ‘The SRA does not bring this appeal lightly and it is a first as far as I am aware.’

Judgment was reserved.

 

This article is now closed for comment.

Topics