International firm Simmons & Simmons has seen off an attempt by a prospective purchaser of a property owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran to bring it before the tribunal following a decade-long dispute.
David Hinkel had been trying to buy a property in London and solicitors at Simmons & Simmons understood themselves to be instructed by an authorised representative of Iran, but the transaction did not proceed and it was never definitively determined whether the individual in question was authorised by Tehran or not.
In 2018 Hinkel sued Simmons for wasted costs, alleging the firm had acted fraudulently, but the claim was summarily dismissed in 2020. He issued eight applications challenging a decision to refuse him permission to appeal, leading to Mr Justice Adam Johnson imposing an extended civil restraint order (ECRO) against him.
The claimant later made two separate applications to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, leading to a series of decisions which ultimately concluded Simmons & Simmons had no case to answer. Hinkel appealed two of those decisions and the firm, as a respondent to each appeal, had submitted that Hinkel’s applications were caught by the ECRO. This turned out to be incorrect and was ‘promptly corrected’.
Hinkel than applied to the SDT alleging that the firm had committed misconduct by making knowingly false statements. The SDT decided his application did not raise an arguable case. He appealed.
In the High Court, Hinkel alleged the firm’s submissions were made ‘as part of an attempt to prevent the release of incriminating evidence’. He also accused the chair of the SDT, Angela Horne, of being ‘riddled with the usual bias expected of her’.
Dismissing the appeal, Mr Justice Henshaw said Hinkel’s argument about Simmons & Simmons’ motive ‘makes little sense’, pointing out he was able to obtain office copies of the filed documents he accused the firm of covering up. The judge added there was nothing which demonstrated Horne was biased.
‘There is no merit in this appeal. The SDT’s decision that no prima facie case had been put forward against the respondents was correct. The appeal must be dismissed’, Henshaw said.
