Background
Zeeshan Mian, a solicitor admitted in 2007 and director of Denning Solicitors, appealed under section 49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) determination dated 15 January 2020. The SDT fined him £20,000, imposed two years of practice conditions commencing on 2 December 2019, and ordered fixed costs of £25,000. It upheld allegations concerning his employment of “SAH”, who had been disbarred after a fraud conviction but was allowed to exercise High Court rights of audience, and the use of the firm’s client account in connection with Client E’s property-bond investment scheme. The underlying facts were not contested. The SDT found breaches of Principle 6 and rule 14.5 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, failure to achieve the relevant outsourcing outcome, and manifest incompetence.
Mian’s appeal did not challenge the sanction’s proportionality. He argued instead that the SRA had finally concluded the 2014 and 2015 investigations by imposing practising-certificate conditions, upheld by an Adjudication Panel in November 2016, and therefore could not refer those matters to the SDT in 2018. He relied on administrative file closures, res judicata and estoppel, and also alleged delay contrary to Article 6 ECHR. His appeal was filed on 27 October 2025, more than five and a half years after the 21-day deadline expired on 6 February 2020, following substantial disclosure between June and August 2025. He sought an extension of time and permission to adduce fresh evidence; the SRA opposed both and sought to rely on Tina Whitman’s evidence if his evidence were admitted.
The Court’s Holding
Robert Palmer KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, refused the extension. Applying Taylor v SRA [2019] EWHC 201 (Admin) and the Mitchell/Denton principles, he held that the delay was serious and significant, required very compelling justification, and had none. Mian had raised the jurisdiction argument in his SDT Answer but did not pursue it at the hearing, agreed facts and a proposed penalty, and did not appeal when the determination omitted that argument. The judge also noted that no specific-disclosure application was made to the SDT and that disclosure was not pursued between 2021 and 2025.
The newly disclosed documents did not establish an arguable case. Practising conditions imposed under section 13A were regulatory public-protection measures, not disciplinary punishments, and did not exhaust the SRA’s separate power to refer misconduct to the SDT. The forensic team’s file closure marked completion of its report; the December 2015 closure form reflected consolidation of investigations; and a February 2016 case note expressly proposed both immediate conditions and disciplinary proceedings for all identified breaches. The November 2016 form and March 2018 memorandum were likewise consistent with consolidated, continuing consideration, not a decision to take no further action.
Even an administrative closure would not itself remove the power to refer. Mian remained a solicitor, a “regulated person” and a “person under investigation” under the applicable rules while the disciplinary decision remained pending. Cause-of-action and issue estoppel did not apply: there had been no final disciplinary determination, and the SRA’s regulatory action was not adjudication of a dispute between opposing parties of the kind considered in Clark v In Focus Asset Management and Tax Solutions Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 118. The delay argument also required none of the new documents and could have been advanced promptly after the SDT determination. The court admitted the parties’ evidence only as necessary to decide the extension application, refused that application, and stated that it would dismiss the appeal on the merits in any event because the referral was lawful and the SDT had full jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- A 5½-year delay beyond the 21-day appeal deadline was serious and significant, and neither the abandoned jurisdiction argument nor the 2025 disclosure justified an extension.
- Practising-certificate conditions protect the public and manage regulatory risk; they are not punishment and do not preclude later SDT disciplinary proceedings.
- Closing or consolidating internal SRA investigation files did not, on these facts or as a matter of law, terminate the investigation or invalidate the referral.
- The court rejected Mian’s post-draft application to reopen the evidence and factual conclusions, and directed that permission for any second appeal must be sought from the Court of Appeal.
Why It Matters
The judgment distinguishes regulatory practising conditions from disciplinary sanctions and confirms that their imposition does not create a jurisdictional bar to later SDT proceedings. It also demonstrates that internal file-management labels cannot substitute for evidence of a decision to end disciplinary consideration.
For appellate practice, the decision underscores the need to preserve jurisdictional and delay objections and appeal promptly. Fresh disclosure will not support an exceptional extension where it does not reveal an arguable error. The later September 2026 striking-off order, which remained under appeal, formed no part of the court’s consideration.