Summary of Anonymized Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This summary recounts the factual and procedural matrix as set out in the provided opinion, with all parties and entities anonymized.

The Appellant sought to buy a property in The City in about 2015. The property was said to be owned by a foreign sovereign state and the Appellant instructed solicitors for the purchase. Company A (a law firm) and two individuals who worked for Company A (the Respondents) were involved and took instructions from an individual referred to in the record as Individual A. The sale did not complete. The Appellant alleged that Individual A was a fraudster and that Company A and the Respondents failed to undertake proper due diligence, acted dishonestly, and breached regulatory and sanctions rules. Company A and the Respondents denied dishonesty, asserting in good faith that they believed they were acting for the relevant foreign government.

The Appellant pursued both civil litigation and regulatory complaints. In December 2018 he issued a civil claim against Company A which was summarily dismissed on 10 March 2020 by Judge Dight for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action. Multiple attempts by the Appellant to obtain permission to appeal that civil judgment were refused by Judge Johnson and others, and an Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) was made against the Appellant in December 2021 (and later extended to 2026 in part).

Separately, the Appellant made regulatory complaints to Regulator A and applications to the Tribunal. The Tribunal initially refused to certify a case to answer in June 2019 (the 2019 Tribunal Decision). The Appellant sought an appeal from that decision; Judge Knowles dismissed that appeal on the papers on 18 March 2020. The Appellant then made a further application to the Tribunal in July 2021 (the 2021 Application). In July 2022 a panel of the Tribunal certified that there was a case to answer (the 2022 Tribunal Decision) limited to specified due diligence and related allegations (excluding certified allegations of dishonesty). After reconsideration proceedings, on 18 January 2023 the Tribunal revoked the July 2022 certification and dismissed the 2021 Application (the 2023 Tribunal Decision). The Tribunal's primary reasoning was that the 2022 panel had acted under a fundamental mistake of fact because it was unaware of the earlier 2019 Application and the 2019 Tribunal Decision.

The Appellant appealed the 2023 Tribunal Decision to the High Court under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974. Judge Henshaw (referred to in this summary as Judge Henshaw) dismissed that appeal on 23 February 2024 and ordered costs against the Appellant. The Appellant sought permission to bring a second appeal in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal (Judge Zacaroli) granted permission only on a narrow ground (Ground 4), limited to whether there had been a valid and extant application for permission to appeal against Judge Knowles's order of 18 March 2020 and whether any such pending appeal precluded the Tribunal's conclusion that the certified allegations were res judicata. The present opinion addresses that rolled-up hearing and resolves the scope and merits of Ground 4 and related procedural questions, including whether permission should be given for a second appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there was a valid application for permission to appeal against the order of Judge Knowles dated 18 March 2020 and, if so, whether that application remained pending before the Court of Appeal.
2. If there were a valid and pending appeal against Judge Knowles's order, whether that pending appeal would preclude the Tribunal's conclusion on res judicata made in the 2023 Tribunal Decision.
3. Whether the 2023 Tribunal Decision was correctly founded on (i) the Tribunal's power to set aside a certification decision for a fundamental mistake of fact, or (ii) alternatively, on the doctrine of res judicata and/or abuse of process.
4. Whether permission to bring a second appeal should be granted given the stringent "second appeals" test (necessitating an important point of principle or practice or other compelling reason).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant asserted that an appeal against the 2019 Tribunal Decision (the appeal determined by Judge Knowles) had in fact been brought during the COVID pandemic but was maladministered by the Court (email delays and court error) and therefore remained extant or capable of being revived; accordingly his subsequent 2021 Application and the Tribunal's 2022 certification (and any dismissal based on res judicata) should be affected by that appeal.
• The Appellant contended that the 2019 Tribunal Decision and Judge Knowles's order were procured by dishonesty on the part of Company A and the Respondents, and that res judicata cannot apply where a regulatory decision has been procured by fraud or deception.
• The Appellant argued procedural errors by the Tribunal in certifying and then revoking certification, that the Tribunal should have considered allegations of dishonesty, and that the Certified Rule 14 allegation was not merely parasitic and should not have fallen away with the dismissal of the 2021 Application.
• The Appellant asserted that the Court of Appeal had provided incorrect guidance (advising him to seek an oral hearing rather than to appeal directly) and that this misdirection affected his ability to secure an issued Appellant's Notice challenging Judge Knowles's order.

Respondents' Arguments (and Tribunal's/Respondents' Counsel's submissions)

• The Respondents' primary submission was that the 2022 Tribunal Decision should be revoked because the 2022 certifying panel acted under a fundamental mistake of fact — specifically, it was unaware of the earlier 2019 Application and the earlier Tribunal's refusal to certify, which (had it been known) would have led to a different approach to the SRA investigation requests and likely no certification.
• In the alternative, the Respondents argued that the certified allegations were res judicata or that pursuing them would amount to an abuse of process (the alternative arguments which the Tribunal addressed obiter if the fundamental mistake argument failed).
• Respondents pointed to the SRA's earlier investigations concluding no evidence of misconduct and to the 2019 Tribunal Decision and its affirmation by Judge Knowles as demonstrating lack of substance in the Appellant's allegations of dishonesty.
• Respondents sought dismissal of the Appellant's later regulatory applications and costs, asserting that the Tribunal and courts had been entitled to treat the dishonesty allegations as outside the certified case after prior consideration.
• Respondents' counsel (Attorney Coleman) framed a structured set of questions for the Tribunal addressing (i) the Tribunal's power to revoke certification for fundamental mistake, (ii) whether such a mistake had occurred, and (iii) in the alternative, whether res judicata or Henderson v Henderson-type abuse of process applied.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's reasoning proceeds in a series of connected steps, each confined to the material contained in the opinion.

1. Scope of permission and Ground 4: The Court of Appeal (Judge Zacaroli) had granted permission only on Ground 4, which asked whether there was a valid application for permission to appeal Judge Knowles's order of 18 March 2020 and, if so, whether that pending application precluded the Tribunal's conclusion in the 2023 Tribunal Decision that the Appellant's subsequent application should be dismissed on res judicata grounds. The present hearing was thus a rolled-up hearing limited to that issue (and related directions if a valid pending appeal were found).
2. Did the Appellant file a valid issued appeal against Judge Knowles? The opinion recounts a sequence of communications and documents sent by the Appellant to the Court of Appeal in April 2020 (three attachments described as Appellant's Notices 1, 2 and 3) and a further set of documents on 21 April 2020 including a Form N161 (Appellant's Notice 3A). The court found that:
   • Appellant's Notice 3 / 3A (which sought to appeal Judge Knowles's decision) were not issued by the Court of Appeal and no Appellant's Notice challenging Judge Knowles was ever issued.
   • The Court of Appeal later issued an Appellant's Notice (Appellant's Notice 4) in January 2021, but that purported to challenge the 2019 Tribunal Decision (not Judge Knowles's order) and was likely issued in error; it was subsequently cancelled.
   • The Civil Appeals Office's email of 25 March 2021 advised the Appellant to seek an oral rehearing in the Administrative Court rather than to appeal Judge Knowles directly; the opinion held that this advice was legally incorrect in the context of section 49 appeals and that, in the statutory scheme under section 49, the usual right to renew orally after a refusal on the papers does not apply.
   On this basis, the court concluded that although the Appellant had sent material within time, no valid issued notice of appeal against Judge Knowles's order was ever created and, in consequence, there was no pending appeal.
3. Statutory framework and its effect on renewal rights: The court analysed section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 and section 46(10)(c). Two distinctive features were noted:
   • Appeals under section 49 do not require permission to appeal in the usual sense.
   • Where the underlying Tribunal decision was made under rules that allow a determination without hearing the applicant (by reference to section 46(10)(c)), section 49(5) permits the High Court not to hear the appellant.
   The court concluded these provisions create a statutory exception to the general civil procedure rule (as articulated in MD (Afghanistan) v SSHD) that a party refused on the papers can normally renew orally. Consequently, the Court of Appeal's administrative advice to the Appellant to seek an oral renewal was inconsistent with the statutory appeal route that should have been pursued (i.e., direct appeal under section 49).
4. Nature of the Tribunal's 2023 Decision — fundamental mistake v res judicata: The court carefully reviewed the Tribunal's 2023 Decision and Henshaw J's summary. The Tribunal's primary and dispositive finding was that the 2022 certifying panel acted under a fundamental mistake of fact: it had been unaware of the earlier 2019 Application and the earlier Tribunal's refusal to certify, and that ignorance was fundamental because it led the 2022 panel to take a path (repeated requests to the SRA and eventual certification) it would otherwise not have taken. The Tribunal expressly treated res judicata and abuse of process as alternative and, in the event the fundamental-mistake argument failed, obiter considerations. Therefore:
   • The court emphasised that the 2023 Tribunal Decision was founded on the power to revoke certification for fundamental mistake, not on res judicata.
   • The Tribunal's brief treatment of res judicata was obiter; it was limited to one paragraph and labelled as observations rather than being essential to the decision.
5. Effect of the presence or absence of a pending appeal against Judge Knowles: The court concluded that whether there was an extant appeal against Judge Knowles's order was immaterial to the validity of the 2023 Tribunal Decision because that decision was not founded on res judicata. The Tribunal's revocation relied on the 2022 panel's fundamental mistake about the existence and outcome of the 2019 Application. Even if a pending appeal against Judge Knowles had existed, the court observed that Judge Knowles's order would, in any event, be final for res judicata purposes (citing the academic text and authorities) — but this was a hypothetical and unnecessary point given the absence of a pending appeal and the Tribunal's reliance on fundamental mistake.
6. Prospects of success on Ground 4 and the second appeals test: The court assessed the merits of Ground 4 and found that an appeal on that ground had no real prospect of success. In addition, it applied the "second appeals" test and concluded the proposed second appeal would not satisfy the threshold (the proposed appeal raised no important point of principle or practice nor other compelling reason). The court therefore refused permission to appeal on Ground 4.
7. Ancillary procedural directions and costs: The court recognised it was unsatisfactory that some of the Appellant's April 2020 documentation had not been resolved but concluded that:
   • Even if a valid notice of appeal had been filed then or were to be filed now, it would have had no real prospect of success and would have failed the second appeals test.
   • No purpose would be served by directing that the Court should issue Appellant's Notices 3 or 3A now; the court directed that no further action be taken in respect of them.
   • The Court refused to extend the existing Court of Appeal ECRO because it accepted the Appellant's assurance that no further applications were intended; the court warned of re-imposition if the Appellant resumed issuing unmeritorious applications.
   • The Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondents' costs of these proceedings on the standard basis (with a limited carve-out relating to costs attributable to the ECRO extension application).

Holding and Implications

Holding:

PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED

The court refused permission to appeal on Ground 4. The court found that no valid issued appeal against Judge Knowles's order of 18 March 2020 was ever created and that there is no pending appeal. The court further held that the 2023 Tribunal Decision was correctly founded on the Tribunal's power to revoke certification for a fundamental mistake of fact and that res judicata was an alternative and obiter consideration; accordingly the absence of a pending appeal against Judge Knowles did not undermine the Tribunal's decision or the High Court's dismissal of the Appellant's challenge.

Implications:

• The Appellant's attempt to rely on an alleged extant appeal against Judge Knowles's order fails because no valid issued Appellant's Notice was ever created and, in any event, any such retrospective issuance would not have had a real prospect of success.
• The Tribunal's revocation of certification (the 2023 Tribunal Decision) stands as a decision based on a finding of fundamental mistake of fact by the 2022 certifying panel; the court endorsed that reasoning and concluded it was open to the Tribunal and to the High Court.
• The court directed that the Court should take no further action in respect of the Appellant's April 2020 Appellant's Notices 3 / 3A and refused to extend the Court of Appeal ECRO (subject to the court's warning about future unmeritorious applications by the Appellant).
• The Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondents' costs, to be assessed on the standard basis (with a specified exception for costs attributable to the ECRO extension application).
• No new legal principle or binding precedent was established by this decision; the court applied existing statutory provisions and case law principles to the facts of this procedural and regulatory appeal. The decision resolves the parties' dispute in the present proceedings and does not purport to change the law.

End of anonymized summary based exclusively on the information in the provided opinion.