SIF judicial review falls flat

A High Court judge has thrown out a judicial review challenge to the Law Society by two solicitors over the way it issued waivers for indemnity contributions, expressing 'dismay' at the way the case was handled.

Cheshire-based Chronnell Hibbert, formerly Hibberts, succeeded at the first hurdle in its application for a discount from the mandatory contribution to the old Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF), but was later turned down by SIF company secretary Andrew Darby - also head of the Law Society's professional indemnity section - because it did not meet the Society's waivers criteria.

Senior partner Paul Toovey and partner Stephen Gwenlan launched the judicial review on the grounds that their bid did meet the criteria, and that they had a legitimate expectation that it would succeed.

They also suggested that Mr Darby had a potential conflict of interest in making such decisions, and that he had applied criteria which were not in the rules.

However, Mr Justice Burnton ruled last week that Mr Darby had acted fairly, giving 'good and adequate' reasons for his decision.

The judge also criticised the law firm and its barrister, Satvinder Juss, for making an application that he should withdraw himself from the case because he had not read sufficient documents or understood the merits of their arguments.

'As in the case of the making of the allegation of malice on the part of Mr Darby, it is for counsel to satisfy himself that there are reasonable grounds for making such an application,' he said.

'It is also regrettable that the clients on whose instructions the applications were made were solicitors.'

The judge concluded: 'I have to express my dismay that these proceedings, involving considerable documentation and two days of court time, related to a claim for a discount amounting to about 14,500.'

Mr Toovey said the firm would not be appealing, but declined to comment further.

Mr Juss was unavailable for comment.

A Law Society spokeswoman said: 'We are pleased with the outcome of the case and the acknowledgement by the High Court that the Society's waivers policy is operating as it should be.'

Paula Rohan