AC-2024-LON-000040 - [2025] EWHC 1965 (Admin)

The Tribunal failed to correctly summarise Mr Cottam’s witness evidence at paragraph 33.11 of the judgment when stating Mr Cottam had “accepted that he had signed the lists of transfers, including improper transfers, written out by TN”.

The Tribunal failed to correctly summarise Mr Cottam’s witness evidence at paragraph 35.15 of the judgment when stating Mr Cottam “was, on his own evidence more involved in the finances after 2015” and in finding that “It was implausible that he had not properly looked at the ledgers or reconciliations for such an extended period of time”.

The Tribunal failed to mention, in reference to the absence of reporting to the SRA and retention of TN, that Mr Cottam had put the freehold property (from which Cottam Solicitors Limited operated which were in his name with substantial equity) on the market for sale from May 2018 when he discovered the shortfalls, as detailed in his Answer and statements (paragraph 35.17).

The Tribunal erred in finding that had Mr Cottam been talking of the firm as a whole in his interview with the SRA investigator, rather than him personally, he would have mentioned TN as on his case she had a central role in what had taken place (paragraph 35.19).

The Tribunal erred in finding that Mr Cottam had sought to rely on some parts of his interview with the SRA investigator but not others without identifying which parts these were (paragraph 35.19).

The Tribunal erred in finding that Mr Cottam had given a truthful and accurate account in that interview which was inconsistent with the finding in respect of Allegation 1.2 (paragraph 35.19).

The Tribunal erred in finding that there was no plausible reason for TN to have decided to move significant sums of money out of the client account whilst keeping Mr Cottam in the dark about it (paragraph 35.20).

The Tribunal erred in finding that Mr Cottam was aware that the transfers were taking place and that they were improper which ignores completely Mr Cottam’s very detailed evidence in his Answer and statements to the contrary (paragraph 32.27).

The Tribunal erred in finding that the transfers could not happen without Mr Cottam’s knowledge despite evidence that the internet banking system was vulnerable to a trusted employee abusing it (paragraph 32.30).

The Tribunal erred in finding that Mr Cottam had not made an admission to creating the invoices in his interview with the SRA investigator (paragraph 32.31).

The Tribunal failed to evaluate Mr Cottam’s re-examination on parts of his interview with the SRA investigator when he stated, “I was made aware by my cashier of the shortfall”.