A partner at a renowned defamation firm whose disciplinary case was dismissed is applying for £1m costs from the Solicitors Regulation Authority - which the regulator argues would have a ‘chilling’ effect on its work.
Claire Frances Gill of Carter-Ruck, admitted in 1996, was alleged to have sent, or arranged to have sent, an ‘improper threat’ in April 2017. At the time, the firm was acting for since-disappeared ‘crypto queen’ Dr Ruja Ignatova, whose cryptocurrency scheme was later found to be a Ponzi-style fraud.
Gill denied the allegation in full and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal granted her application for summary dismissal last month.
A costs hearing before a three-person panel has been brought by Gill. She is seeking an order against the Solicitors Regulation Authority to be assessed summarily. The sums sought total around £1m. Gill is seeking 75% - £752,755.02 – as an interim payment.
Richard Coleman KC, for Gill, said a costs order should be made as the case against Gill ‘was pursued unreasonably by the SRA’ and the regulator had brought a ‘legally misconceived case’. He told the three-person panel that the ‘inordinate delay’ in Gill’s case may also be a good reason for the tribunal to make such an order.
Read more
Coleman added that the investigating officer had recommended that the investigation be closed: ‘But then, following involvement of unidentified senior colleagues at the SRA and an article written by Mr Neidle [former magic circle tax partner and now consultant Dan Neidle] and a complaint made to the SRA by Mr Neidle eventually in November 2024, the investigation officer recommended Miss Gill and the firm be referred to the tribunal.’
David Price KC, for the SRA, argued that no costs order could be made. ‘This is not about compensation for stress,’ he said. 'It is very regrettable stress will be caused to a respondent…it is not about punishing the regulator for having made a bad decision to initiate regulatory proceedings. It is about compensation for financial loss in respect of costs the respondent has paid or is liable to pay. That is the financial prejudice that is being referred to here.’
The tribunal heard Gill had entered into a ‘CFA-light’ with ‘either Carter-Ruck or other parties’. Price said: ‘The CFA-light equivalent has been used in this case and that makes crystal clear there can be no circumstance in which the respondent is going to be paying any money…in relation to the costs of these proceedings.’
He told the tribunal a costs order against the SRA would have a ‘chilling effect on the regulator’ and inhibit the prospect of the regulator 'taking on media lawyers in the future.
‘I have to submit it is simply not open to the tribunal to make a costs order because there is nothing to weigh in the balance or if there is, it is very small in comparison to the adverse and chilling effect to the SRA of such eye-watering costs.’
The costs hearing was adjourned for the tribunal’s deliberations and decision.
