The SDT ordered the SRA to pay costs after ruling its prosecution had no legal basis
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has been ordered to pay a solicitor nearly £160,000 in costs after its prosecution was ruled to be fatally flawed, in a rare decision by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
The tribunal took the unusual step of finding that Tina Theresa Shiebert had no case to answer after the regulator had closed its case. As a result, the allegation against her was dismissed in full.
In disciplinary proceedings before the SDT, costs do not automatically follow the outcome. Where allegations are dismissed, the default position is that no order for costs is made unless there is good reason to depart from that approach. In this case, the tribunal concluded that such a departure was justified.
The SDT said the allegation brought by the SRA was fundamentally misconceived and could not succeed on any reasonable interpretation of the evidence. While acknowledging that the SRA was acting in the exercise of its regulatory function, the tribunal concluded that the decision to prosecute fell outside the bounds of what was reasonable.
At the time of the events in question, Ms Shiebert was a partner at Forbes Hall, trading as Dickins Shiebert, in Potters Bar, Hertfordshire. She qualified as a solicitor in 1986 and has an unblemished regulatory record. The two firms have since demerged.
The allegation arose from correspondence sent by Ms Shiebert in 2021 while acting for the new freehold owners and landlords of a property comprising six flats. In a letter to the leaseholders, she said that the lease was defective in relation to an area known as the paddock, as well as communal areas, and that the lease therefore required variation.
The SRA alleged that the letter was misleading and intended to induce the leaseholders to enter into a deed of variation under which they would forfeit rights over land.
However, the tribunal found that the lease did not grant the leaseholders any enforceable rights over the paddock or communal areas. As a result, it concluded that there were no rights which the leaseholders could have been misled into giving up.
The tribunal also noted that the letter indicated the leaseholders were already aware of issues with the lease. It found that Ms Shiebert was explaining the defect rather than concealing it, and that the substance of the correspondence was an invitation to engage in discussions about a possible variation, not an attempt to mislead or induce forfeiture.
The tribunal upheld Ms Shiebert’s application of no case to answer and dismissed the allegation.
Ms Shiebert applied for costs of £171,654. The tribunal found good reason to make a costs order, describing the allegation as fatally flawed from the outset and lacking any proper foundation in law or fact.
It also took into account the significant stress and health impact of the proceedings on Ms Shiebert, which it said reinforced the appropriateness of a costs order.
The SDT rejected the SRA’s request to refer the matter to a costs judge and its argument that the claimed costs were disproportionate. After adjustments, the tribunal assessed the costs payable by the SRA at £159,242 and refused to delay payment pending receipt of the full judgment.