The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal today ordered the Solicitors Regulation Authority to pay the defendant's costs over its failed prosecution of a dismissed ‘SLAPP’ case. The ruling is the latest blow to the regulator's campaign against so-called strategic litigation against public participation.
Claire Frances Gill, admitted in 1996, a partner at defamation firm Carter-Ruck, 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 OneCoin scheme was later found to be a Ponzi-style fraud.
Gill denied the allegation and her application for summary dismissal was granted by the SDT in December. The SRA is appealing the SDT’s decision.
Gill brought a costs application against the SRA, seeking costs to be assessed summarily. Earlier this month the tribunal heard that Gill was seeking around £1m, with 75% - £752,755.02 – as an interim payment.
The SRA argued against a costs order telling the three-person panel it would have a ‘chilling effect’ on prosecutions.
The tribunal adjourned following the day-long hearing and returned with a decision this morning ordering the SRA pay Gill’s costs 'in principle' subject to a detailed assessment, unless otherwise agreed. The SDT did not order an interim payment.
Read more
In a short ex tempore judgment, panel chair Alison Kellett said that the tribunal had summarily dismissed the case against Gill finding it ‘legally flawed and unsupported by evidence’ adding the ‘prolonged delay’ and ‘legal inaccuracies’ had created a ‘disproportionate prejudice to the respondent [and] a substantial personal and professional impact’ which was ‘good reason to depart from the default decision’ that costs orders are not an automatic right if a case is summarily dismissed.
She added that the tribunal was ‘content’ that a costs order against the SRA was fair and proportionate. The panel made no decision in regard to the ‘CFA light’ between Gill and the firm, finding it was a matter for detailed assessment before a costs judge.
A written judgment will be published later today, Kellett said.
Update 1645: The written judgment will not be published today, the chair said, due to the need to incorporate additional matters.
These include submissions in relation to the SDT's decision that the costs order be 'in principle'. The tribunal heard that the use of the words 'in principle' could cause confusion to the costs judge tasked with assessment. Restating the SDT's decision, the chair said the tribunal 'orders [the SRA] to pay the costs of those proceedings from 2 May 2025 subject to a detailed assessment on the standard basis unless otherwise agreed'.
Following an application by the SRA, Gill was ordered to pay the regulator's costs in relation to applications on disclosure and anonymity 'subject to a detailed assessment by the High Court on the standard basis unless otherwise agreed'.
This article is now closed for comment.
29 Readers' comments