Tinkler v Solicitors Regulation Authority

Tinkler v Solicitors Regulation Authority

The SDT was entitled to infer that clients were misled as to the nature of the partnership, even without direct evidence from clients. However, the SDT erred in law by failing to consider the First Appellant's means when setting the fine, rendering the sanction clearly inappropriate. The costs orders against the Second and Third Appellants were excessive, not based on their means, and should be reduced and not enforced without further leave.

Parties
First Appellant: Richard John Tinkler; Respondent: Solicitors Regulation Authority; Second Appellant: Lee Terrance Hayward; Third Appellant: Janie Hayward
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Solicitors' Misconduct, Sanctions, Costs Orders, Procedural Fairness
Professional Discipline Legal Profession Regulation Solicitors' Misconduct Sanctions Costs Orders Procedural Fairness

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard John Tinkler

First Appellant

Solicitors Regulation Authority

Respondent

Lee Terrance Hayward

Second Appellant

Janie Hayward

Third Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SDT erred in finding that the First Appellant misled clients as to the nature of the partnership (allegation 7)
  2. 2 Whether the fine imposed on the First Appellant was disproportionate and failed to consider means
  3. 3 Whether the Second Appellant was denied procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The SDT was entitled to infer that clients were misled as to the nature of the partnership, even without direct evidence from clients. However, the SDT erred in law by failing to consider the First Appellant's means when setting the fine, rendering the sanction clearly inappropriate. The costs orders against the Second and Third Appellants were excessive, not based on their means, and should be reduced and not enforced without further leave.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • The finding on allegation 7 against the First Appellant is upheld.
  • The fine against the First Appellant is reduced to £20,000.