Elliott, R (on the application of) v Solicitors Disciplanary Tribunal & Anor

Elliott, R (on the application of) v Solicitors Disciplanary Tribunal & Anor

Rule 25 does not entitle a respondent who attended the hearing, even if only for a preliminary application and then withdrew, to a re-hearing. The claimant's deliberate absence after an unsuccessful adjournment application does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25. Any alleged unfairness or over-prosecution should have been pursued by way of appeal, not by application for a re-hearing.

Parties
Claimant: Allen Phillip Elliott; Defendant: Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal; Interested Party: The Law Society
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash SDT Decision Refusing Re Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitors Disciplinary Proceedings, Interpretation of Tribunal Rules, Right to Re Hearing, Costs
Administrative Law Professional Discipline Solicitors Disciplinary Proceedings Interpretation of Tribunal Rules Right to Re Hearing Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allen Phillip Elliott

Claimant

Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Defendant

The Law Society

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash SDT Decision Refusing Re Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 25 of the Solicitors Disciplinary Proceedings Rules 1994 entitled the claimant to a re-hearing
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was unfairly denied a re-hearing due to absence at the substantive hearing
  3. 3 Whether the SDT or Law Society acted unfairly or over-prosecuted the case

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 25 does not entitle a respondent who attended the hearing, even if only for a preliminary application and then withdrew, to a re-hearing. The claimant's deliberate absence after an unsuccessful adjournment application does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25. Any alleged unfairness or over-prosecution should have been pursued by way of appeal, not by application for a re-hearing.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash SDT decision refusing re-hearing is dismissed
  • Costs reserved pending written submissions and transcript of prior hearing