Davies v Greene

Davies v Greene

The SDT erred in law by striking out Davies' complaint on the grounds of abuse of process and lack of merits without properly considering the evidence and the distinction between civil and disciplinary proceedings. The SDT wrongly treated the civil court's findings as conclusive, failed to assess whether the complaint raised a case to answer under the relevant professional standards, and did not engage with the substance of the evidence. The appeal is allowed and the SDT's decision is set aside.

Parties
Appellant: David Davies; Respondent: David Greene
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against SDT Strike Out Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Collateral Attack, Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Strike Out Applications, Professional Misconduct, Evidential Weight of Civil Judgments
Professional Discipline Legal Profession Regulation Abuse of Process Collateral Attack Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal Strike Out Applications Professional Misconduct Evidential Weight of Civil Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Davies

Appellant

David Greene

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against SDT Strike Out Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SDT erred in striking out the disciplinary complaint as an abuse of process and for lack of merits
  2. 2 Whether the SDT failed to properly consider the evidence and the distinction between civil and disciplinary proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the SDT was wrong to treat the civil court's findings as conclusive in disciplinary proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The SDT erred in law by striking out Davies' complaint on the grounds of abuse of process and lack of merits without properly considering the evidence and the distinction between civil and disciplinary proceedings. The SDT wrongly treated the civil court's findings as conclusive, failed to assess whether the complaint raised a case to answer under the relevant professional standards, and did not engage with the substance of the evidence. The appeal is allowed and the SDT's decision is set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • SDT's decision of 6 September 2019 set aside
  • Matter remitted to the SDT for reconsideration