Respondent resolving to bring disciplinary proceedings against applicant conveyancer – Delay in respondent serving notice of hearing upon applicant – Disciplinary and appeals committee deciding charges ought to proceed – Whether committee erred in law – Licensed Conveyancers’ Discipline and Appeals Committee (Procedure) Rules Approval Order 1987 para 4(1) – Application dismissed
In October 1997 the investigating committee of the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (the respondent) resolved to intervene in the applicant’s practice, suspend him and instigate disciplinary proceedings. The respondent’s case involved a complaint regarding the applicant’s practice towards local authority searches. However, notice of the hearing was not issued until June 1999, following which the applicant invited the respondent to withdraw certain of the charges on the grounds of delay. The respondent argued that the delay in serving the notice was caused by the retention of files by the trading standards department; these, it maintained, were not made available until May 1999, making investigations impossible.
At the present hearing, however, the respondent changed its stance regarding the release of the files and it conceded that they were returned in 1997. Nevertheless, it maintained that original documents were retained. The matter was referred to the respondent’s disciplinary and appeals committee (DAC), which, in December 1999, addressed the question of delay and decided that the case against the applicant should proceed.
The applicant sought to quash the DAC’s decision, principally on the ground that para 4(1) of the Licensed Conveyancers’ Discipline and Appeals Committee (Procedure) Rules Approval Order 1987 para 4(1) created a mandatory requirement that a notice of hearing be served “as soon as possible” and the DAC had not complied with that requirement. It was submitted that a period of 20 months could not reasonably be regarded as “as soon as possible”. The issue was whether the DAC was entitled to hold that the 1987 order had been complied with.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The DAC had proceeded on the basis that the requirement in para 4(1) of the order was mandatory. It did not err in law in finding that the requirement had been complied with and was entitled to conclude that, having received the files, the respondent needed to review them carefully. As a case of alleged widespread misconduct emerged, the DAC was entitled to give weight to the need for the respondent to comply with its wider duty under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985. The matter of access to files was not necessarily a decisive factor in the DAC’s decision. Further, the DAC had the experience to assess the time needed to deal with such investigations: R v Board of Visitors of Dartmoor Prison, ex parte Smith [1986] 2 All ER 651 considered.
Christopher Stoner (instructed by Standley & Co, of Knowle) appeared for the applicant; David Cook (instructed by Wollastons, of Chelmsford) appeared for the respondent.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
