A solicitor who maintained that an NHS Trust had been served with clinical negligence proceedings has been struck off after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that he had repeatedly misled the court and opposing solicitors about service of the claim.
What did the Tribunal decide?
In SRA Ltd v Gabriel Awosika, Case No. 12825-2025, dated 28 September 2026, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Gabriel Awosika off the Roll of Solicitors after finding all four allegations against him proved, including dishonesty, in connection with misleading the court and opposing solicitors over service of clinical negligence proceedings.
The case concerned conduct arising from a clinical negligence claim brought by two clients against South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. The allegations related to statements and evidence concerning whether the Trust had been properly served with the proceedings.
The Tribunal hearing took place on 7 September 2026. Mr Awosika did not attend and was not represented. He had emailed the Tribunal that morning stating that he would not attend following the SRA’s intervention into his practice and its closure on 30 July 2026. The Tribunal determined that the hearing should proceed in his absence.
- Clinical negligence proceedings were issued. The claim form had to be served within four months.
- Deadline for service of the claim form.
- Second witness statement and the disputed letter dated 20 June 2019 were relied upon.
- Third witness statement was signed and served.
- Mr Awosika gave oral evidence concerning service of the proceedings.
- The SDT hearing took place in Mr Awosika’s absence.
- The judgment was dated and filed with the Law Society.
- The SDT published the case online.
What was the underlying clinical negligence case?
Mr Awosika acted for two claimants in clinical negligence proceedings against South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. The proceedings had been issued in February 2019 and the claim form was required to be served by 26 June 2019.
The Trust was represented by Bevan Brittan LLP. Although the firm had previously informed Mr Awosika’s firm that it was instructed by the Trust, it had expressly stated in February 2019 that it was not instructed to accept service of proceedings.
A letter dated 20 June 2019 was received by Bevan Brittan on 24 June. It enclosed the particulars of claim but not the claim form. Bevan Brittan queried whether the letter purported to constitute service and reiterated that it was not instructed to accept service on behalf of the Trust.
On 11 July 2019, Bevan Brittan confirmed that the claim form had not been sent to it and that the Defendant had not been served with proceedings. Mr Awosika replied on 12 July stating that the firm had served Bevan Brittan and NHS Resolution with the claim form and particulars of claim. The claim form and particulars were subsequently sent to Bevan Brittan by email on 15 July 2019.
The dispute later became whether the Trust itself had been directly served within the required period.
What did the SRA allege?
The SRA brought four allegations arising from Mr Awosika’s conduct between January and June 2020.
| Allegation | Conduct alleged | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | A second witness statement stated that the Defendant had been served on 20 June 2019 when the Tribunal found that it had not. | Proved |
| 1.2 | A letter purportedly sent to the Defendant on 20 June 2019 was annexed to the second witness statement, despite the Tribunal finding that it was not sent on that date. | Proved |
| 1.3 | A third witness statement again stated that the Defendant had been served on 20 June 2019. | Proved |
| 1.4 | During oral evidence on 18 June 2020, Mr Awosika maintained that the Defendant had been served and relied upon the disputed letter. | Proved |
The Tribunal found that the four allegations met the required seriousness threshold because misleading the court on four separate occasions was of profound importance to the integrity of the solicitors’ profession.
Why did the Tribunal find dishonesty?
The Tribunal considered the evidence surrounding the disputed 20 June 2019 letter and concluded that it had been backdated and was not served on the NHS Trust.
Among the matters relied upon were the fact that neither the Defendant NHS Trust nor NHS Resolution received the letter, while Mr Awosika’s earlier communications referred only to service on Bevan Brittan and NHS Resolution.
The Tribunal also noted that his undated first witness statement did not mention service on the NHS Trust. It was only in the second witness statement dated 3 January 2020 that he stated for the first time that the Trust had also been served on 20 June 2019.
The Tribunal identified significant differences between the letter purportedly sent to the Trust and the letter sent to Bevan Brittan. These included differences in the reference, date and address fonts, the form of signature and the wording concerning the documents enclosed.
The Tribunal found that the letter dated 20 June 2019 was false and that the subsequent statements and oral evidence concerning it were misleading.
The Tribunal also considered the findings previously made by HHJ Roberts in the underlying proceedings. The judge had concluded that the letter to the Defendant was not prepared at the same time as the letter to Bevan Brittan, was not sent within the relevant period and had been prepared later and backdated.
Applying the relevant principles on dishonesty and integrity, the Tribunal found that dishonesty was established and that the alleged breaches of the SRA Principles and Code followed.
Why was Awosika struck off?
When considering sanction, the Tribunal assessed Mr Awosika’s culpability, the harm caused and the aggravating and mitigating factors.
The Tribunal considered his culpability to be high. It found that he had full control of the situation and was an experienced solicitor. In the Tribunal’s assessment, he had initially made a mistake by failing to serve the NHS Trust directly, but then attempted to cover up that mistake through a fabricated letter and a misleading account presented repeatedly in two sworn statements and in oral evidence.
The harm was assessed as extremely high. The Tribunal noted that missing a limitation period could derail legitimate litigation and that misleading the court and other parties represented a serious offence capable of gravely undermining public trust in the profession.
The Tribunal also considered the conduct to have been calculated and repeated over a sustained period. Although Mr Awosika had no previous disciplinary findings, the Tribunal concluded that the personal matters advanced in mitigation did not reduce the seriousness of the misconduct.
It therefore assessed the seriousness of the misconduct as extremely high.
Because the conduct involved dishonesty, the Tribunal considered whether exceptional circumstances existed that could justify a sanction short of strike-off. It found no such circumstances and concluded that striking Mr Awosika from the Roll was appropriate and proportionate.
What costs were ordered?
The Tribunal considered the SRA’s costs statements and concluded that the costs claimed were reasonable and proportionate. It also noted that the SRA’s case had succeeded in its entirety and that Mr Awosika had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing at the last possible moment.
Mr Awosika did not provide information about his means as required under the relevant procedural rules.
The Tribunal therefore ordered him to pay £28,498.42 in costs of and incidental to the application and enquiry.
| Issue | Tribunal finding |
|---|---|
| Allegations | All four proved |
| Dishonesty | Established |
| SRA Principles | Principles 1, 2, 4 and 5 breached |
| Code | Paragraph 1.4 breached |
| Sanction | Struck off the Roll of Solicitors |
| Costs | £28,498.42 |
Frequently asked questions
Who is Gabriel Awosika?
Gabriel Awosika was admitted to the Roll of Solicitors in March 2012 and, at the time of the alleged misconduct, was employed as a director and solicitor at Astute Dynamic Ltd.
Why was Gabriel Awosika referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal?
The SRA alleged that he had misled the court and opposing solicitors concerning service of proceedings in a clinical negligence claim, including through witness statements, a disputed letter and oral evidence.
Did the Tribunal find that the disputed letter was genuine?
No. The Tribunal found that the letter dated 20 June 2019 was false, had been backdated and had not been served on the Defendant NHS Trust.
Did the Tribunal find dishonesty?
Yes. The Tribunal found that dishonesty was established after considering the evidence surrounding the letter, the witness statements and the oral evidence given in the underlying proceedings.
What was the sanction?
Mr Awosika was struck off the Roll of Solicitors. The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances that would justify a lesser sanction.
How much does Gabriel Awosika have to pay in costs?
The Tribunal ordered Mr Awosika to pay £28,498.42 in costs of and incidental to the application and enquiry.
Did the hearing take place in his absence?
Yes. Mr Awosika did not attend the hearing on 7 September 2026 and was not represented. The Tribunal determined that he had made a voluntary decision not to attend and proceeded with the hearing in his absence.