SRA’s Section 43 ruled unsafe: SDT voids order on Isobel standing and orders £27,000 costs

SDT says SRA should have offered oral hearing; Section 43 order quashed and £27k costs awarded

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has quashed an SRA Section 43 order imposed on Isobel Standing, ruling that the adjudicator’s process was procedurally unfair because she was not offered an oral hearing on disputed issues of dishonesty. The Tribunal also ordered the Solicitors Regulation Authority to pay £27,000 towards Ms Standing’s costs.

Sitting on 18 August 2025, a panel chaired by Ms A Banks, with Mrs A Sprawson and Ms L Fox, heard Ms Standing’s application to review an SRA adjudicator’s order dated 26 March 2025. The adjudicator had found that between 2 and 13 October 2023, Ms Standing submitted inaccurate or misleading time entries and, between 2 and 6 October 2023, inaccurate overtime claims; both were found dishonest. The SRA’s order brought Section 43 restrictions into effect, barring her from working in SRA-regulated practice without prior approval.

Ms Standing, represented by Gregory Treverton-Jones KC, argued the dishonesty findings were unjust and wrong because they were reached on the papers without giving her the chance to give evidence and be cross-examined. Her submissions—served in December 2024—contended that no adjudicator could safely determine her subjective belief on the balance of probabilities without oral evidence, and that the fair course was to refer the matter to the SDT or hold an oral hearing.

The Tribunal accepted that analysis. Citing its own Guidance Note (February 2025) and the Administrative Court’s approach in Youssef v SRA, it held that where material facts are in dispute or credibility must be assessed, fairness requires an oral hearing unless it could make no difference. It found “a serious procedural error” in the adjudicator’s failure to offer one. On that basis, the SDT granted the application and quashed the Section 43 order.

The SRA, represented by Louis Weston, did not oppose quashing but invited no remittal, accepting the Tribunal lacked power to remit. The central remaining dispute was costs. The SRA argued for no order, relying on Baxendale-Walker principles that regulators generally enjoy protection from adverse costs when acting in the public interest. It also submitted that adjudicators are independent of the SRA’s operational functions.

The SDT rejected those submissions. It held that a Section 43 order can be made only by the SRA or the SDT and that, as a matter of statute and the SRA’s own glossary, adjudicators make regulatory decisions on behalf of the SRA. The decision was therefore the SRA’s decision. The Tribunal further concluded that costs “should follow the event” on a review or appeal of an in-house SRA decision, applying the approach seen in Bass & Ward, and that even if Baxendale-Walker applied, there was “good reason” to depart from it because the proceedings were vitiated by a serious procedural irregularity. The SDT also drew on Tsang to confirm that a fundamental flaw can justify a costs order even where the regulator acts in good faith.

Turning to quantum, Ms Standing sought £54,255. The SRA said the figure was excessive, particularly after it had conceded the quashing. The Tribunal declined to order detailed assessment but reduced the claim on summary assessment. It found elements of the solicitors’ preparation time excessive given the narrowed issues, considered attendance by additional fee-earners unnecessary once concession was indicated, and held that leading counsel was not required for the remaining costs dispute. It fixed recoverable costs at £27,000.

The SDT’s formal order, dated 1 September 2025, records that the Section 43 order is quashed with effect from 18 August 2025 and that the SRA must pay £27,000 as the costs “of and incidental to the response” to the application.

The ruling underlines the requirement for procedural fairness before making career-limiting dishonesty findings in SRA adjudications. Where credibility is central, individuals must be given the opportunity to give oral evidence and be tested. It also clarifies that, on reviews of SRA in-house decisions, the SDT may award costs against the regulator where serious procedural error has occurred, notwithstanding general regulatory cost protections.