David Greene v David Davies

David Greene v David Davies

The SDT's strike out decision was flawed because it treated District Judge Stewart's 2016 judgment as necessarily dispositive of the disciplinary complaint, failing to recognize that the issues raised by Mr Davies were not identical to those previously determined and that disciplinary proceedings may properly consider regulatory breaches even where prior civil findings exist. Only the aspect of the complaint seeking to relitigate whether the 2008-2009 emails would have changed the 2012 civil judgment should be struck out as abusive; the remainder of the complaint raises a case to answer and should proceed.

Parties
Appellant: David Greene; Respondent: David Davies
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part; proceedings struck out only insofar as they seek to relitigate the effect of the 2008-2009 emails on the 2012 civil judgment; remainder of complaint to proceed.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Collateral Attack, Merits Test, Solicitors Regulation, Issue Estoppel
Professional Discipline Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Collateral Attack Merits Test Solicitors Regulation Issue Estoppel

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Greene

Appellant

David Davies

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disciplinary proceedings against Mr Greene should be struck out as an abuse of process or for lack of merit
  2. 2 Whether the complaint constitutes a collateral attack on a prior civil judgment
  3. 3 Whether the SDT's strike out decision was flawed in its analysis of abuse of process and merits

Ratio Decidendi

The SDT's strike out decision was flawed because it treated District Judge Stewart's 2016 judgment as necessarily dispositive of the disciplinary complaint, failing to recognize that the issues raised by Mr Davies were not identical to those previously determined and that disciplinary proceedings may properly consider regulatory breaches even where prior civil findings exist. Only the aspect of the complaint seeking to relitigate whether the 2008-2009 emails would have changed the 2012 civil judgment should be struck out as abusive; the remainder of the complaint raises a case to answer and should proceed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part; proceedings struck out only insofar as they seek to relitigate the effect of the 2008-2009 emails on the 2012 civil judgment; remainder of complaint to proceed.

Orders

  • Proceedings against Mr Greene struck out only as regards the allegation that District Judge Stewart would have made a different decision in 2012 had the 2008-2009 email correspondence been available.
  • The remainder of Mr Davies' complaint is not struck out and may proceed before the SDT.