Solicitor loses case against intervention but wins minor victory
Solicitor Chris Gadd, who is waging a legal battle against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for intervening in his firm, has lost his case at the Court of Appeal but won a small victory on the deadline for challenge.
Gadd argued that he was unable to comply with the eight-day time limit for challenging the intervention because of his “impecuniosity” after the SRA closed his firm in 2009 and froze its accounts, and the SRA’s failure to provide him with the forensic investigation report on which the intervention was based until weeks after his firm was closed.
In a statement which may set a precedent for future interventions cases, however, the court said it could overlook the fixed eight-day time limit available to solicitors to challenge SRA interventions, in Gadd v SRA [2013] EWCA Civ 837. Gadd began his challenge more than a year after the intervention.
Delivering judgment, Mr Justice Elias said: “Even if we assume—and we are prepared to do so in favour of the applicant—that there may be exceptional cases where one could read down para 6(4) [of Sch 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974] so as to allow for applications out of time in exceptional cases, nonetheless we are not satisfied that impecuniosity was a justification for applying that principle here.”
Elias J said Gadd could have represented himself, but he criticised the SRA for not making the forensic report available at the time of intervention. He dismissed Gadd’s appeal, stating: “I do recognise that there may certainly be some circumstances where an applicant is prejudiced without seeing the basis on which the intervention is made. But even allowing for the possibility that this would justify under Convention principles, and in particular Art 6, some departure from the eight-day period, it was plainly critical for Mr Gadd to act very speedily thereafter.”
