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

This is an appeal by Harry Francis Cottam brought pursuant to s.49 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (‘the 1974 Act’). Mr Cottam appeals a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) made on 26 October 2023, with the full written decision of the Tribunal having been received by the parties on 14 November 2023. The Tribunal, following a finding that two allegations referred to the Tribunal by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (‘SRA’) had been proved, ordered Mr Cottam be struck off the Roll of Solicitors and that he pay the costs of and incidental to the application and enquiry fixed in the sum of £4,000. At the Tribunal hearing Mr Cottam was represented by counsel. At this hearing he has represented himself. The SRA is represented by Mr Matthew Edwards of counsel.

The decision of the Tribunal of 26 October 2023 records the allegations made against Mr Cottam and the findings of the Tribunal as follows:

“1.

The allegations against the Respondent, Harry Francis Cottam, made by the SRA were that, while in practice as a Solicitor and Sole Director at Cottams Solicitors Limited (“the Firm”):

1.1.

Between May 2016 and May 2018, he caused or allowed improper transfers of monies from the client account to the office accounts, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Rule 12 statement, and in doing so he breached Rule 20.1 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011, and Principles 2, 4, 6, and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011. PROVED

1.2.

Between May 2016 and May 2018, he prepared or caused to be prepared, false invoices in respect of improper client account to office account transfers, as set out in Schedule 1 and in doing so he thereby breached Principles 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. NOT PROVED.

1.3.

In addition, both allegations 1.1 and 1.2 were advanced on the basis that Mr Cottam’s conduct was dishonest. Dishonesty was alleged as an aggravating feature of his misconduct but was not an essential ingredient in proving the allegations. PROVED IN RELATION TO ALLEGATION 1.1 ONLY.”

By an Appellant’s Notice issued on 4 January 2024, Mr Cottam now appeals on the grounds that the Tribunal’s decision was contradictory and failed to correctly summarise and refer to relevant parts of the evidence provided by Mr Cottam, meaning that the Tribunal’s conclusions and ultimately, the findings made, were wrong.

Ahead the substantive appeal, the court was required to determine an application by Mr Cottam for anonymity. That application was opposed by the SRA. I refused that application.

In Section 10 of his Appellant’s Notice, Mr. Cottam outlined that he was applying for “…an injunction (draft attached) preventing publication of the order of 26.10.23 and preserving my anonymity in these proceedings.” At Section 11 of the Appellant’s Notice, Mr. Cottam set out a narrative, referring to various medical documents. The medical documents were included in the Appeal Bundle. Whilst, upon the application of Mr Cottam, the Tribunal on 24 October 2023 directed that the Cause List remain anonymised for the duration of the hearing and that the hearing itself would take place in private, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it should withhold publication of its decision, noting that that there was a strong public interest in its decision and reasons being published in full, with the anonymisation of Mr Cottam being an exceptional step. The decision of the tribunal remains unpublished pending the outcome of Mr Cottam’s appeal.

Ahead of the appeal hearing, Mr Cottam had not formally applied for the appeal hearing to be heard in private pursuant to r39.2(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 (‘CPR’) and so his name was displayed on the court list for the hearing. Within this context, Mr Cottam accepted that the hearing should proceed in public, however he sought to persuade the court that his name be anonymised in the subsequent judgment based on the adverse impact the publication of an un-anonymised judgment would have on his mental health. In the latter regard, Mr Cottam relied on a series of medical reports dating between 2020 and 2023, the last being a report of Dr Gupta, consultant psychiatrist, dated 29 December 2023. The medical evidence indicates, at the time it was compiled, a certain vulnerability on the part of Mr Cottam, in particular in relation to his involvement in the proceedings within the context of his identity as a solicitor being central to his psychological health. Dr Gupta opined in 2023 that it was highly likely that there would be a significant deterioration of Mr Cottam’s mental health and the risk of suicide would be likely to increase if the Tribunal’s findings were published.

At the appeal hearing, Mr Cottam described the deterioration of his mental health in similar terms to Dr Gupta’s December 2023 report and stated that his mental health continues to be adversely impacted by his being struck off, telling the court that being a solicitor struck from the Roll is to be “a social leper”. Mr Cottam confirmed, however, that there has been no updated medical evidence since the report of Dr Gupta 18 months ago. He also confirmed that he is not currently on medication or receiving therapeutic input. Mr Cottam further confirmed that he remains in employment, although not in the capacity of a solicitor.

CPR r39.2(4) provides that the court must order that the identity of any person shall not be disclosed if, and only if, it considers non-disclosure necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of that person. Balancing the competing rights engaged by Mr Cottam’s preliminary application under Arts 8 and 10 of the ECHR, and having regard to the importance of open justice and the public interest in the identity of those professionals providing services to the public and who are the subject of disciplinary proceedings being known, I was satisfied that it could not be said in this case that non-disclosure necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of Mr Cottam. In the circumstances, I was not satisfied that it was necessary to derogate from the principle of open justice and I declined to make a direction pursuant to CPR r 39.2(4).

In determining Mr Cottam’s appeal against the findings and decision of the Tribunal, I have had the benefit of an appeal bundle and of Skeleton Arguments prepared by both parties. I also had the benefit of detailed oral submissions made by both Mr Cottam and Mr Edwards of counsel. I must commend Mr Cottam for the manner with which he conducted himself during a hearing that was undoubtedly difficult for him, his submissions having been clear and closely argued.