Geoffrey Williams KC; Half Time success and substantial Costs Order against SRA

Geoff was instructed by Nick Trevette of Murdochs Professional Discipline Solicitors to represent Ms Tina Shiebert in proceedings heard at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 20^th & 21^st October 2025 and 8^th December 2025.

 

The allegation against Ms Shiebert was that she had sent a letter to third parties which was apt to mislead them as to the extent of their rights over land for the purposes of inducing them to enter into a Deed of Variation under which those rights would be forfeited in breach of various SRA Principles.

Ms Shiebert had been admitted a Solicitor on 1^st October 1986 and had enjoyed an exemplary career.

The case arose out of Ms Shiebert acting for a Mr & Mrs G who owned a flat being one of six with an adjoining Paddock. The flats were all leasehold.

It was plain that five of the flats had rights over the adjoining Paddock but for whatever reason the lease of one flat to a Ms D and her sister (who had never lived there) did not appear to grant such rights. Ms Shiebert was instructed to attempt to regularise the position with respect to the Paddock rights.  The assumption was that the Lease for the flat in question had been negligently drafted.

The facts were very confusing.  The SRA case was that the letter written by Ms Shiebert was “apt to mislead” because it proposed a Deed of Variation of the Lease in question to remove rights.  Importantly, the letter in question concluded with a request for details of the Solicitors acting for Ms D and her sister.

The case was put as one of dishonesty and Ms Shiebert’s professional career was in jeopardy. The true position was only ascertained as a result of very thorough investigations carried out by Nick Trevette who made an enormous contribution to the ultimate success.  Nick carried out investigative work which should have been carried out by the SRA.

 

After cross examining Ms D, Geoff made a submission that there was no case for the client to answer.  Such submissions are very rarely made at the Tribunal and hardly ever succeed. However in this case the Tribunal readily dismissed the allegation as revealing no case to answer.  Having considered all the plans assembled by Nick, the Tribunal concluded that the Lease in question did not grant any enforceable rights over the Paddock or the communal areas.  Accordingly there were no rights which the leaseholders could be misled into giving up.  Consequently, there was no evidence to support an essential ingredient of the allegation.  The Tribunal further found that the substance of the letter in question was to invite the leaseholders to engage in discussions regarding a possible variation rather than to mislead or induce them into forfeiting their rights.

As well as dismissing the application at half time the Tribunal made an Order for Costs in favour of Ms Shiebert.

A separate hearing was arranged to consider this issue and on this occasion, the SRA was represented by Leading Counsel as opposed to in-house Counsel at the initial hearing.  He submitted that in light of the amount in question the Tribunal should not assess costs summarily but rather should refer the matter to a Costs Judge. We opposed this application successfully.  The Tribunal had no hesitation in, quite rightly, considering itself perfectly well equipped to assess the costs.  A suggestion that our Costs Schedule was unreliable should never have been made and was roundly rejected.

The Tribunal ordered the SRA to pay the costs of Ms Shiebert in the sum of £159,242.00.  Again it is rare for a successful Solicitor to be awarded costs even when acquitted at the Tribunal.  However, given the nature of the prosecution the Tribunal was entirely content to make such an Order.

 

It cannot be overemphasised that these proceedings caused enormous stress to Ms Shiebert over a lengthy period of time.  The proceedings should never have been brought.  The success obtained was the result of our doing the spade work that should have been done by SRA.  The defence was fully disclosed in Ms Shiebert’s Statement and there was no question of any ambush.

 

We would like to think that this exceptional result was brought about by extremely thorough work carried out for the client.

The Judgment of the Tribunal can be found here.

---

• Share article:

---