Peter Rhys Williams v Solicitors Regulation Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Carr,Sir Brian Leveson P |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 1478 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/954/2017 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 21 June 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 1478 (Admin)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
( Sir Brian Leveson)
Mrs Justice Carr
Case No: CO/954/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Patrick Lawrence Q.C. and Scott Allen (instructed by Clyde & Co LLP) for the Appellant
Michael McLaren Q.C. and Marianne Butler (instructed by Capsticks Solicitors LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 7, 8 and 9 June 2017
Approved Judgment
Introduction
This is an appeal brought by Mr Peter Williams ("Mr Williams"), a former solicitor, pursuant to s. 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974. He appeals against findings of misconduct against him by a constitution ("the Tribunal") of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ("the SDT") on 9 th December 2016, with written judgment on 1 st February 2017 ("the judgment"), as follows:
i) Representing that his client did not have a valuation of a certain property in the sum of £3.9million ("the £3.9m representation"): misconduct involving dishonesty;
ii) Representing that negotiations were proceeding between his client and F Limited ("the negotiation representations"): misconduct amounting to a want of integrity; and
iii) Representing that he acted for F Limited ("the F Ltd representations"): misconduct amounting to a want of integrity.
Mr Williams was struck off the Roll of Solicitors as a result of these findings, and ordered to pay costs in the sum of £195,000. The appeal has been heard on an expedited basis.
The appeal is said to raise a number of issues of general importance, including as to how allegations of dishonesty and want of integrity are to be pleaded and proved, and the scope of the rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (" Browne v Dunn"). As will be seen below, a wide-ranging attack has been made on the approach and findings of the Tribunal.
Summary of relevant factual background
Mr Williams and Wilsons
Mr Williams is now 61 years old. He was admitted to the Roll of Solicitors in October 1982. He practised successfully as a solicitor, principally as a litigator, and with a speciality in the law of agricultural holdings. He is the author of the leading textbook in this area: Scammell, Densham and Williams. He was for many years a partner at Burges Salmon LLP ("Burges Salmon") until November 2010, when he became a member of Ebery Williams LLP. On 1 st April 2011, Wilsons Solicitors LLP ("Wilsons") acquired the practice of Ebery Williams LLP. The plan had been for Mr Williams to develop the agricultural holdings practices at Wilsons, where he was an equity partner. Internal disagreements broke out, and Mr Williams (and a fellow partner) were excluded from Wilsons. Mr Williams obtained an injunction, and was re-admitted to Wilsons' Bristol office. However, on 30 th June 2012 he retired as a result of a resolution, passed by a 75% majority of the membership, authorising the service of an Involuntary Notice of Retirement on him. He joined Michelmores as an equity partner in October 2012.
The Involuntary Notice of Retirement was the subject of acrimonious High Court proceedings brought by Mr Williams against Wilsons. That litigation was compromised in November 2013. During the course of those proceedings Wilsons carried out detailed reviews of Mr Williams' files. That review led Wilsons to make a report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority ("the SRA") alleging that Mr Williams had committed a " serious criminal offence". This report led to the disciplinary proceedings subsequently brought against Mr Williams. As was established before the Tribunal, Wilsons' report to the SRA was clearly made in the context of the High Court proceedings, and designed to put pressure on Mr Williams tactically (although this was something that had been expressly eschewed by Wilsons at the time of making its report). The report was in fact made on the same day that Wilsons made a "without prejudice" offer of settlement to Mr Williams.
Mr Williams' dealings with the client
The allegations against Mr Williams arise out of his dealings with or on behalf of the client in 2011 and 2012. In the absence of complaint or waiver of privilege by the client, there has been extensive anonymisation not only as to his identity – he is referred to simply as "the client" – but also as to other individuals and the property involved.
The judgment, contained in a public document (Case No. 11421–2015), sets out a detailed and lengthy recitation of (essentially non-contentious) factual background (see paragraphs 27 to 82). It suffices to set out at this stage in outline only a broad background of the facts necessary to understand the issues on this appeal.
The client was made bankrupt on 17 th April 2009, and (automatically) discharged from bankruptcy on 17 th April 2011. He owned a property ("the property"), which was mortgaged in favour of Northern Rock (Asset Management plc ("Northern Rock"). The mortgage debt at all material times was some £2.9million, rising towards £3million. A man known to the client, "JD", appeared to be (or was represented to Mr Williams as being) interested in purchasing the property for £3.9million. The precise nature of the relationship between the client and JD is not known, but it does not appear that JD and the client were dealing at arms' length.
Mr Williams met the client for the first time on 18 th February 2010, whilst still a partner at Burges Salmon. Mr Williams decided not to act, informing the client of this in a letter dated 2 nd March 2010. He was not comfortable with the role that he was being asked to undertake, namely to negotiate with Northern Rock to achieve the lowest price in the knowledge that a significantly higher price was already available, rather than merely in the belief that a higher price could be achieved.
However, the client returned to Mr Williams in April 2011, by which time Mr Williams was at Wilsons. At a meeting on 27 th April 2011, the client instructed Mr Williams to act in connection with a proposed transaction involving the purchase of the property from, or with the consent of, Northern Rock, at a price which was consistent with its market value. The purchasing entity was to be a company with which the client would have a connection. The client said that he hoped he would, thereafter, be able to profit from the sale of the property to JD. Mr Williams said that he was only prepared to act if:
i) The purchase from Northern Rock was at market value;
ii) The client obtained a proper valuation, which would be disclosed to Northern Rock;
iii) The connection between the purchaser and the client was disclosed; and
iv) JD instructed an independent solicitor.
JD then retained a solicitor. Mr Williams also received (somewhat unusual) instructions to the effect that JD had made payments of about £900,000 to £1million, rising to about £1.4million.
On 19 th May 2011, Mr Williams instructed Carter Jonas to provide an open market valuation of the property. On 16 th June 2011, Carter Jonas telephoned Mr Williams to state that the property was valued in the sum of £2.3million. On 26 th July 2011 Carter Jonas provided a written report to the same effect.
On 22 nd June 2011, Mr Williams wrote to Northern Rock, disclosing that the proposed purchaser was a " family friend", and explaining that " our client will seek to negotiate with the Purchaser in order to try to obtain an increase in the offer, ideally to £2.3 million". This is the first of the negotiation representations. On 13th July 2011, Northern Rock replied, stating that the connection between the parties meant that it would only ever be prepared to sell at a price which was fully supported by independent valuation evidence. Northern Rock then obtained two independent valuations of the property — one of which was from Landmark Surveyors in the sum of £2.2million, and sent to Mr Williams. The other was by Shepherd Chartered Surveyors, not provided to Mr Williams, and not in evidence before the Tribunal, or on this appeal. But, given that Northern Rock subsequently agreed to the sale of the property at that price, the valuation is likely to have been at or around the sum of £2.2million.
On 16 th August 2011, in the second of the negotiation representations, during a telephone conversation between Mr Williams and Northern Rock, Mr Williams stated that he was:
"… currently engaged in the process of trying to get a firm increased offer … and will be pressing the prospective purchaser through solicitors to see if the price can be improved."
In September 2011, Mr Williams attended a hearing in possession proceedings brought by Northern Rock. These proceedings were adjourned.
On 1st November 2011, Mr Williams wrote to Northern Rock explaining that:
"The offer of £2.2 million is not an offer 'by our client'. It is an offer which has been made to our client by a prospective purchaser. … Our Client's concern … is that the offer of £2.2 million, in a continuing difficult market, will be reduced and not increased."
On 9 th November 2011, Northern Rock wrote to Mr Williams, agreeing to sell the property for £2.2million. However, despite communications between Mr Williams, JD's solicitor, the client, Northern Rock, and the potential funders of a purchase of the property by JD, the sale by Northern Rock did not proceed.
On 8 th March 2012, Mr Williams wrote to Barclays and HSBC, in identical terms, regarding the possibility that they might provide funds to F Ltd for the purchase of the property. In both letters, Mr Williams stated that his firm acted for F Ltd. These were the F Ltd representations.
On 13 th April 2012, Mr Williams sent CKFT Solicitors ("CKFT") – the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Law Society of Ireland v Coleman
...procedural irregularity or impropriety had not occurred.” 44 Counsel also cites Williams v. Solicitors Regulatory Authority [2017] EWHC 1478 (Admin) (at paragraph 55). “This appeal proceeds by way of review, and not rehearing. The Tribunal was a specialist tribunal, which had the particular......
-
R Shane Wheeler v Police Appeals Tribunal
...standards which society expects from professional persons and which the professions expect from their own members’: Williams v SRA [2017] EWHC 1478. Integrity can be seen as a distillation of the trust which is placed in a professional person, and a want of integrity is any breach of that t......
-
David Fenton Wingate v The Solicitors Regulation Authority
...competent solicitor as would undermine the trust and confidence that the public would place in a solicitor.” 87 In Williams v SRA [2017] EWHC 1478 (Admin) the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found that the appellant solicitor had made three sets of false representations to third parties. I......
-
Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Farhad Azima
...Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 2127, [2019] 1 FCR 120; and is also supported by other cases. In Williams v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2017] EWHC 1478 (Admin) Carr J referred to Browne and said at [73]: “The rule is not an absolute or inflexible one: it is always a question of fact and degre......
-
Integrity Restored
...who do not wish to test those boundaries should remain scrupulous, in word and deed, at all times. Footnotes 1 Williams v SRA [2017] EWHC 1478 (Admin) The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your spec......