Shaw and another v Logue [2014] EWHC 5 (Admin)
Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, Jay J, 13 January 2014
The standard of reasoning required from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was the same as that set out in South Bucks DC v Porter [2004] 1 WLR 1953; r 16(5) of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2007 requires no more and no less.
Timothy Dutton QC and Craig Ulyatt (instructed by Mayer Brown International LLP) for the applicant. John Wardell QC and Andrew Mold (instructed by RadcliffesLeBrasseur) for the respondent.
The two appellants (the solicitors) were both former solicitors. They acted for clients in proceedings in the Chancery Division against the respondents. The respondents succeeded in the litigation, and then complained to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) about the solicitors. They adduced evidence obtained in related litigation in the US. The SDT found misconduct proved and struck off the solicitors. The solicitors appealed under s 49 of the Solicitors Disciplinary Act 1974.
The grounds of appeal included that the SDT had failed properly to set out its reasons and reasoning
