BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Maxfield-Martin v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd (Rev1) [2022] EWHC 307 (Admin) (17 February 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/307.html Cite as: [2022] EWHC 307 (Admin) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
PETER MAXFIELD-MARTIN |
Appellant |
|
- and – |
||
SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY LIMITED |
Respondent |
____________________
Louise Culleton (instructed by Capsticks Solicitors) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 15 and 16 December 2021
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Soole :
1.1 submitted his application for mental health re-accreditation with a declaration he completed and signed off in the name of GGJ, which certified that its contents were correct and confirmed GGJ had read and understood the declaration, when he knew that GGJ had not seen or reviewed the application;
1.2 suggested in an email to the firm that they withdraw the allegation they had made about him to the Law Society, whilst referring to reporting alleged breaches by the firm of the Civil and Criminal Contracts. There is no appeal against the Tribunal's finding on this Allegation.
Narrative
The Judgment
Allegation 1.1
Allegation 1.3 : dishonesty
Ms Cara Young
Principle 2 : Integrity
Principle 6
Grounds of appeal and submissions
'1…to have found proved the allegation of dishonesty made against [PMM].
2…to conclude that ordinary decent people would find that [PMM]'s conduct was dishonesty (sic) having found that [he] '…believed that he had authority to put complete the declaration in the name of [GGJ]' and having accepted the evidence of the witness Cara Young.
3….to find that the authority to sign the declaration on the form could not be delegated. There is no indication on the form, or anywhere else in the evidence that the authority could not be delegated.
4…to have disregarded the concession made by the [SRA] that their case on dishonesty was weakened if the Tribunal found that [PMM] had authority to complete the declaration in the name of [GGJ].
5…to have found proved the allegations that [PMM] breached Principles 2 & 6 in completing the declaration on behalf of [GGJ] in light of their finding that he had authority to complete the declaration in the name of [GGJ].'
Authority
The contrast with Ms Cara Young
SRA submissions
Authority
Ms Young
Discussion and conclusions
Authority
Dishonesty
Ms Young
Principle 2 : Integrity
Principle 6
Sanction
Note 1 Mr P. Lewis (in the chair), Ms A.E. Banks, Dr S. Bown [Back] Note 2 cf. e.g. the summary of the distinction between express and implied actual authority in Hely-Hutchinson v. Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549 per Lord Denning MR at 583A-C. [Back]