The SRA does not need motives for dishonesty, High Court says

It is "no part of the task of the SRA" to establish motives for dishonesty by a solicitor nor is it necessary for such a finding by the SDT, the High Court has held.

The case involved David Webb, a solicitor for 35 years and the principal of David Webb & Co, a sole practice in Essex.

The court heard that Webb was struck off by the SDT in November 2012. Webb accepted that he had failed to act in the best interests of his client, but not that he had acted in a manner likely to diminish the trust the public placed in the profession and denied behaving dishonestly. He appealed to the High Court and the striking off was stayed.

Delivering judgment in Webb v SRA [2013] EWHC 2078 (Admin), Mr Justice Jeremy Baker said it was "no part of the task of the SRA" to establish a motive for Webb's dishonesty nor was it a prerequisite for such a finding by the SDT.

"The fact that no such motive could be discerned was made clear by the tribunal in their findings, just as the lack of such a finding was not a bar to the finding of dishonesty".

Jeremy Baker J said that in 2002 Webb was instructed by Charles Wilkins, who suffered from a neurological disorder.

Seven years later Webb drew up a will for his client after an approach from an accountant, Mr Salmon, who provided Wilkins with financial advice.

The will provided for Webb and Salmon to be executors and trustees, and for a bequest of £35,000 to Salmon as well as the cancellation of debts owed to Wilkins by two other individuals.

Jeremy Baker J said no provision was made for Wilkins' daughter "on the basis that she had no need for such provision and had not had any contact with him for many years".

To minimise his tax liabilities, Salmon advised Wilkins to transfer the title of a commercial property in Benfleet valued at around £600,000 to an LLP, which would hold the property on trust for his client.

The partnership was known as Richardson Memorials Properties (RMP) and Salmon was one of the partners. Webb filled in the necessary Land Registry forms and sent a letter explaining that there was no land transaction return because there was no consideration.

Wilkins later decided to terminate his instructions to Webb and appointed a new firm of solicitors. Webb informed the Land Registry, which cancelled the application.

When Wilkins died shortly afterwards, almost all his property passed to his daughter, under the terms of a new will. Webb now acted for Salmon and another beneficiary, Norma Barton, who challenged the new will on the grounds of lack of capacity.

The court heard that, responding to a request from Salmon, Webb applied again to the Land Registry and registered a transfer of the Benfleet commercial property to RMP.

The following year, the SRA wrote to Webb concerning a complaint about possible breaches of the code of conduct.

Mr Justice Jeremy Baker said Webb told the SRA that, regarding the Benfleet property, he had made an innocent mistake "as he had forgotten that he had provided the previous undertaking not to do so."

However, the judge said that the period between the provision of the undertaking and the breach was just over three weeks.

He said that "whilst giving all reasonable latitude for the business of a sole practitioner" it was "almost inconceivable" that Webb was not aware he was breaching the undertaking.

Jeremy Baker J said it was "not difficult to understand how, in the absence of any other explanation save for loss of memory and despite the lack of discernable motive" the SDT came to its conclusion that, when Webb sought to register the transfer of the Benfleet property in breach of his earlier undertaking, he was doing so "deliberately and dishonestly".

The judge said the SDT was entitled to reach its conclusions and dismissed the appeal.