An appeal made by the Solicitor’s Regulation Authority (SRA) against the Carter-Ruck ruling has been granted by the High Court and advanced to the Supreme Court.
The landmark ruling made in September found the SRA does not have the power to requisition documents subject to legal professional privilege (LPP) under S.44B of the Solicitors Act 1974, without a waiver from the client, a decision made from the outcome of the Carter-Ruck Solicitors & another v Solicitors Regulation Authority case.
The decision was handed down on 24 September at the High Court, with Mr Justice Butcher stating that the high threshold for implying that LPP has been overridden by the SRA’s statutory power was not met, despite the regulator having used S.44B for several years without being challenged.
At the time of the ruling, the SRA’s executive director Jonathan Peddie confirmed it would appeal the decision, stating it is “vital” the regulator has access to “all relevant evidence when investigating potential wrongdoing”, adding that the powers of S.44B “enables us to fulfil our regulatory role to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the legal profession”.
While an appeal of a High Court decision would usually be made through the Court of Appeal, the SRA has been granted a leapfrog certificate to the Supreme Court where it will then seek permission.
The case arose from an investigation launched by the SRA in September 2023, into law firm Carter-Ruck and its conduct while acting on behalf of businessman Mohamed Amersi. Amersi instructed Carter-Ruck in a defamation claim against former MP Charlotte Leslie which was struck out by the High Court in June 2023. The law firm denied any wrongdoing and the SRA issued notices to the firm to produce documents from Amersi’s client files. He declined to waive privilege.
Carter-Ruck sought a declaration that the SRA is not entitled in law under S.44B to require the production of material subject to LPP, while the SRA sought a declaration that it does have entitlement.
Mr Justice Butcher ruled that while the SRA’s point of view might be said to be “equivocal” this was not enough to “override the fundamental right of LLP”.
