Roger Allanson v Solicitors Regulation Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Freedman |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 3178 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | No. CO/1637/2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2021] EWHC 3178 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Freedman
No. CO/1637/2021
THE APPELLANT appeared in Person.
Miss N Tahta appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
(Via Microsoft TEAMs)
Introduction
The appellant, Mr Roger Allanson, appeals against findings of misconduct against him by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 1 February 2021 and the sanction imposed by the tribunal striking him off the roll of solicitors. His appeal is in three parts: first, he appeals against a refusal to strike out the claim as being an abuse of process in circumstances to which I shall refer in more detail shortly; secondly, against the findings of misconduct against him by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal at the substantive hearing; and, thirdly, against the award of costs against him in a sum of £103,867.55.
By way of background, Mr Allanson was admitted to the roll of solicitors on 15 February 1986. He established his firm, Allansons LLP (“Allansons”), at first as a sole practitioner and then becoming an LLP in 2008. He began to take on claims relating to allegations of breach of contract by mortgage providers in 2016. Investors or funders provided money in order to assist mortgage borrowers who may have paid too much in interest to their lenders to make recoveries against the mortgage lenders. The cases were reliant on a piece of software called “Checker Reports” created by someone named Mr BT, who was a director of a financial auditing company. The software was able to show miscalculations provided by mortgage lenders and the overpayments.
By 31 January 2019, Mr Allanson's firm had taken on at least 7,773 cases. It was reported that each case would be funded with £4,000 from investors, who would get a share of any award paid to the borrower.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority brought proceedings against Mr Allanson before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for a number of allegations relating to the investment scheme. Allegations involved, amongst other things, the firm misleading potential litigation funders with marketing material and misusing clients' funds. The allegations which were made were as follows:
1. “The Allegations against the Respondent were that, whilst in practice as a partner at Allansons LLP (‘the firm’ or ‘Allansons’):
1.1 Between December 2016 and 30 January 2019 the marketing material provided by the Respondent to potential litigation funders was misleading in that the litigation funding brochure gave the impression that:
1.1.1 there was no or little risk to the litigation funders of losing their original investment;
1.1.2 funders would receive their returns within approximately 6 to 18 months;
1.1.3 the £4,000 provided by the litigation funder would pay for the initial expert report and Allansons LLP would cover all other costs;
1.1.4 there would be no need for Allansons LLP to raise further funding in order to issue court proceedings;
1.1.5 more than one barrister had assessed the likelihood of success in court of any of the claims to be 75%;
1.1.6 Allansons LLP had a proven track record in using AMS's methodology; and in using such material the Respondent breached any or all of Principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 (‘the Principles’) and Outcome 8.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.
1.2 The Respondent misused funders' monies, in that:
1.2.1 by agreement with PSP the firm retained either £952.50 or £152.50 of each £4,015 of funding;
1.2.2 the Respondent transferred around £121,974.44 of the funders' monies to his personal account on 14 August 2018;
1.2.3 the Respondent transferred around £1,535.91 of the funders' monies to the firm's office account credit card on 14 August 2018;
1.2.4 the Respondent transferred around £25,493.61 of the funders' monies to an unknown recipient on 14 August 2018;
1.2.5 the Respondent transferred around £48,996.00 of the funders' monies to a second unknown recipient on 14 August 2018;
1.2.6 the Respondent transferred around £20,000 of the funders' monies to HJ Ltd on 16 August 2018 for introduction and consultancy advice;
1.2.7 the Respondent transferred around £16,500 of the funders' monies to PSE on 17 August 2018 for “card merchant charges”;
1.2.8 the Respondent transferred around £72,460 of the funders' monies to QLP (“Quill Pinpoint”) on 31 October 2018 to pay the firm's PII insurance premium;
1.2.9 between 16 January 2019 and 22 January 2019 the Respondent transferred around £40,000 of the funders' monies to introducers;
and in doing so the Respondent breached any or all of Principles 2 and 6 of the Principles and Outcome 11.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.
1.3 Between December 2016 and 31 January 2019 the Respondent failed to adequately manage the progression of MMP claims and in failing to do so, the Respondent breached any or all of Principles 4, 5, 6 & 8 of the Principles and Outcomes 1.5 & 7.10 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.
1.4 The Respondent sent emails to Mr AL, a litigation funder, on 25 February 2019 at 06.34 and 11.05 that were inappropriate and in doing so breached Principle 6 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.
1.5 Between 31 August 2018 and 5 March 2019 the Respondent failed to maintain properly written up accounting records and in doing so breached any or all of Principles 4, 6 & 8 of the Principles and Rule 1.2 (e) and 29.1 of the Accounts Rules.
1.6 Between December 2016 and March 2019 the Respondent failed to maintain client ledgers for over 4,000 clients in the MMP claims and in failing to do so the Respondent breached any or all of Principles 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Principles and Rule 29.4 of the Accounts Rules.
1.7 [as amended] Between 1 July 2017 and 31 December 2018 the Respondent failed to maintain accurate accounting records in that, at 31 December 2018, the Yorkshire Client Account Bank Reconciliation contained:
1.7.1 Approximately 1,530 unreconciled transactions totalling £572,104.15;
1.7.2 Approximately 155 unreconciled adjustments totalling £165,347.39; and in failing to do so the Respondent breached any or all of Principles 6 & 8 of the Principles and Rule 29.1 of the Accounts Rules.
1.8 The Respondent failed to remedy each or any of the following breaches of the accounts rules identified by the Firm's accountants in their 2017 report, namely:
1.8.1 the bank reconciliations included unknown adjustments;
1.8.2 the bank reconciliations included unreconciled items;
1.8.3 the bank reconciliations showed a difference between the total of client balances and the total of balances shown on the client ledger on both testing dates; and in failing to remedy those breaches promptly or at all the Respondent breached any or all of Principles 6 & 8 of the Principles and Rule 7.1 of the Accounts Rules.
1.9 Between November 2017 and September 2018 the Respondent failed to complete client account reconciliations every five weeks. In failing to do so the Respondent breached any or all of Principles 6 & 8 of the Principles and Rule 29.12 of the Accounts Rules.
2. In addition Allegations 1.1 and 1.2 were advanced on the basis that the Respondent's conduct was dishonest. Allegation 1.1 was further advanced on the basis that the Respondent's conduct was, in the alternative to dishonesty, reckless. Dishonesty and recklessness were alleged as an aggravating feature of the Respondent's misconduct but they were not an essential ingredient in proving the Allegations.
3. In addition Allegation 1.3 was advanced on the basis that the Respondent's conduct demonstrated manifest incompetence. Manifest incompetence was alleged as an aggravating feature of the Respondent's misconduct but was not an essential ingredient in proving the Allegation.
The hearing took place between 25 January 2021 and 1 February 2021. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found most of the allegations proven, including dishonesty. Mr Allanson was consequently struck off the roll of solicitors and ordered to pay costs.
The amended grounds of appeal of the appellant are as follows. First, he made an application dated 5 November 2020 to stay the proceedings brought by the SRA against him, because it was “hoodwinking” its way past the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and, therefore, usurping its gatekeeping role: see para.1.1 of his amended grounds of appeal. I shall refer to the way in which that was developed in the course of this judgment.
Secondly, he says that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal did not apply the correct civil burden of proof against him; as a consequence there was too much indulgence granted to the counsel for the SRA and the matters against him were not properly proven.
He then went on to say that the allegations against him were not properly made out and that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal did not examine the evidence properly and that they failed to give any...
To continue reading
Request your trial