header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
24 January 2014
Issue: 7591 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Solicitor—Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal—Duty to give reasons

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Shaw and another v Logue [2014] EWHC 5 (Admin) 

Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, Jay J, 13 January 2014

The standard of reasoning required from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was the same as that set out in South Bucks DC v Porter [2004] 1 WLR 1953; r 16(5) of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2007 requires no more and no less. 

Timothy Dutton QC and Craig Ulyatt (instructed by Mayer Brown International LLP) for the applicant. John Wardell QC and Andrew Mold (instructed by RadcliffesLeBrasseur) for the respondent.

The two appellants (the solicitors) were both former solicitors. They acted for clients in proceedings in the Chancery Division against the respondents. The respondents succeeded in the litigation, and then complained to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) about the solicitors. They adduced evidence obtained in related litigation in the US. The SDT found misconduct proved and struck off the solicitors. The solicitors appealed under s 49 of the Solicitors Disciplinary Act 1974. 

The grounds of appeal

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll