Anonymity following SDT Proceedings
28th July, 2016
Partner Paul Bennett has written this article on Anonymity following SDT Proceedings.
Recently, the High Court in the case of SRA v Spector  EWHC 37 (Admin) has reversed an order made by the SDT allowing the Third Respondent to remain anonymous despite him having been found guilty of an offence.
The Tribunal stated that whilst it understood that it is important for judgments to be published with the interests of transparency and that normally an application for anonymity would only be considered where no allegations were proved, they were satisfied that the circumstances were similar to those in the case of SRA v Grindod No.11030-2012. In that case, the Tribunal had granted anonymity to the Second and Third Respondent when they were found guilty of only technical breaches.
The High Court ruled that the Tribunal erred in law in making the anonymity order and that, “Open justice is a fundamental principle of the common law”. It was stated that the Tribunal failed to recognise the importance of the open justice principle, the Tribunal misconceived their own Publication Policy, the Tribunal’s wish to act consistently with Grindod provides no support for its decision and there was no secret to be preserved; the Third Respondent was identified in the public proceedings and he was named on the Court hearing lists which were still available on the SDT’s website. The High Court finished by stating, “There is no reason why Richard Spector should not be identified as the Third Respondent”.
If you are facing proceedings before the SDT and/or allegations from the SRA, contact our Professional Practices Department immediately who can provide you with specialist legal advice.
Professional Practices and Employment Law
You might also be interested in...
15th May, 2018
Experienced HR leader joins Aaron & Partners LLP Law firm with offices in Chester and Shrewsbury appoints Kate Robertson to drive HR strategy for more than 120 staff and to support the company’s growth Chester law firm Aaron & Partners LLP has strengthened its senior leadership team with the appointment of an experienced human resources manager. Kate Robertson... Read More »
24th April, 2018
Jan Chillery, Insolvency Partner at Aaron & Partners LLP, shares her experience and the reasons why we should be cautious before paying so-called “bailiffs” over the phone or online without vetting them first. My neighbour has told me that recently he had a CCJ (County Court Judgment) against him. A day or so later, he received a phone call... Read More »
11th April, 2018
Jan Chillery, Insolvency Partner comments on the recent case of Mr A M Coletta v Bath Hill Court – Bournemouth Property Management Ltd UKEAT 0200 17 RN To read the Transcript of Proceedings in full please click here “This case highlights an important aspect of the Statute of Limitations which affects a wider field than employment claims. An... Read More »