Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

The article says:
"The tribunal said the fine it handed out could have been issued by the SRA, in which case costs would have been £600. But it noted the need for proportionality and doing justice to Shah and the profession, and assessed costs at £16,000."

How can they assess costs at 16k when the SDT themselves say the fine it handed out could have been issued by SRA in which case their costs would have been £600.

What about Shah's costs? Why are the SDT encouraging the SRA to behave unreasonably, over aggressively and disproportionately?


Your details

Cancel