SDT says regulator’s continued pursuit of carter-ruck partner became objectively unreasonable
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has been ordered to pay the bulk of a £700,000 costs bill after a disciplinary tribunal heavily criticised its “unreasonable” pursuit of a Carter-Ruck partner.
The underlying dispute was widely regarded as a litmus test for the SRA’s crackdown on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). The allegations centred on a warning letter Gill sent in 2017 to a whistleblower exposing the notorious $4bn OneCoin cryptocurrency scam.
However, the SDT summarily dismissed the proceedings without a full hearing in December 2025. The tribunal concluded that Gill had acted in good faith, unaware that her client was a fugitive fraudster, and ruled that the SRA had improperly built its case using hindsight.
Typically, when a regulatory prosecution fails at the SDT, the default position is that no costs are awarded against the SRA. To secure a costs order, a successful respondent must demonstrate that the regulator’s conduct was unreasonable.
In this instance, the SDT found compelling reasons to override the default rule. The tribunal pinpointed 2 May 2025 as the critical threshold. By this date, Gill’s legal team had submitted comprehensive representations dismantling the allegations, making the SRA’s continued pursuit of the prosecution objectively unreasonable.
According to the costs ruling published by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the SRA’s handling of the prosecution was marred by significant structural and legal failures. The judgment criticised the regulator for a combination of “prolonged and unexplained delay”, initial allegations that were “diffuse and shifting”, and fundamental “legal inaccuracies”.
These cumulative errors caused “disproportionate prejudice” to the respondent, the tribunal noted. It ruled that the SRA’s continued pursuit of the case became objectively unreasonable after 2 May 2025, the date by which Gill’s legal team had comprehensively dismantled the regulator’s allegations in detailed written representations.
The financial impact of this regulatory failure is severe. While Gill’s total legal costs exceeded £1m, the SDT ruled that the SRA is only liable for the costs incurred strictly after that May threshold. This leaves the regulator facing an estimated £700,000 bill, which will now be subject to a detailed assessment on the standard basis.
In finalising the costs order, the tribunal firmly rejected a technical argument from the SRA attempting to block recovery based on Gill’s ‘CFA Lite’ funding agreement. However, the SDT simultaneously declined Gill’s application to force the regulator to make an immediate £750,000 interim payment.
The financial blow caps a disastrous period for the SRA’s anti-SLAPP enforcement efforts. The regulator has confirmed it is appealing the substantive dismissal of Gill’s case to the High Court.