Report comment

It looks like the SDT fell into error in paragraph 132.7 of its decision. It appears to have regarded itself as bound to apply the conclusion of the "arbitration judge" (sic - arbitrator) that there was no underling legal work taking place. The arbitration was between Sanders and its insurers and the arbitrator's findings did not bind any third parties.

The SRA did not do investors any favours by including an allegation that Sanders "permitted payments into, and transfers or withdrawals from, the Firm’s client account which were not related to an underlying legal transaction or a service forming part of their normal regulated activities". The inclusion of that allegation (which appears to have been admitted by Sanders without any intervention or submissions from investors) laid the groundwork for kicking out claims against the Compensation Fund.