A tribunal has refused an individual’s application to overturn a barring order imposed more than 20 years ago. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had imposed a section 43 order in 2006 restricting Kevin Gregory’s involvement in legal practice, after finding that he had held himself out as a solicitor, trainee solicitor or ‘acting solicitor’ when he was not. It was also found that Gregory had pursued a claim for costs which he ought to have known could not be justified.
Gregory had already unsuccessfully appealed the decision in the Divisional Court and failed to secure permission to challenge further in the Court of Appeal.
He applied last year to the SDT to have the order revoked and a hearing date was set for September, after two previous dates had to be vacated. But at the outset of the hearing, Gregory applied for an adjournment, saying he needed time to respond to the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s response and had unresolved issues relating to funding and representation.
The SRA, opposing the application, said Gregory was trying to revisit matters that had already been addressed, and argued that attempts to vary directions or adduce extra evidence could and should have been made earlier.
The tribunal refused to adjourn the hearing, prompting Gregory to say he was unable to fairly continue and to take no further part in proceedings. He did not stay to observe the rest of the hearing.
Going on in his absence, the tribunal heard Gregory’s previously stated position that the 2006 decision was wrong, as the panel had lacked jurisdiction to impose the order, misdirected itself in law and acted without evidence. He had also submitted that he had not been given the opportunity to present any mitigation.
The SRA representative, who had remained in the hearing, argued that Gregory had failed to establish any serious procedural irregularity with the order, and further submitted that it remained necessary for the protection of the public and maintenance of confidence in the solicitors’ profession.
The SRA pointed to a series of judgments and orders made involving Gregory since 2006, including the imposition of general civil restraint orders and a director disqualification order.
The tribunal said it was not satisfied that Gregory had established that the protective purpose underlying the section 43 order had fallen away. It added: ‘The later court orders relied upon by the [SRA] tended to support the conclusion that the continuation of regulatory safeguards remained necessary.’
The application for revocation was revoked and Gregory was ordered to pay around £11,000 costs.
