Report comment

I practised in this area for a while and recall that the approach usually taken in relation to costs orders against the regulator, is that there should be none. The rationale behind this approach seems to be that a regulator performs a valuable service to society and were they to find themselves at risk of adverse orders, this could have a chilling effect on the exercise of their regulatory function. Additionally there is a school of thought that suggests that regulation should be funded by the profession as a whole and adverse cost orders against the regulator should be met by the registrants. I suspect the strongest argument today will be, to use the Courts own expression, the prosecution was a complete shambles or brought in bad faith. If either of those propositions can be shown, then I suspect they will have their costs against the regulator and you are now will end up funding their defence. I hold no ill will against the firm but the SRA will need to offer something substantially more robust than "they were acting on legal advice and had taken legal counsels opinion" when they come to explain the outcome to the profession as a whole. For my part I am absolutely stunned that so substantially case could go this far without any adverse finding against the firm. One wonders whether there was any attempt at resolution prehearing? Dig deep for your practising certificate next year!