Appeal judges reject intervention human rights claim against SRA

The Court of Appeal has rejected an application for permission to appeal by a solicitor claiming that his human rights under Article 6 were breached by its intervention into his personal injury firm.

Article 6 states that fair hearings before 'independent and impartial' tribunals should take place within a 'reasonable time'.

Chris Gadd described the SRA as "over-zealous and inappropriate" in its intervention against his Southampton sole practice, Christopher Gadd Limited, four years ago.

"They intervene and kill off small firms, particularly one man bands, because they know they can crush them," Gadd said this morning.

"Big firms which engage in bad practices are given the opportunity to correct it," he said. "That way they decide whether to intervene is entirely arbitrary".

Gadd has recruited Eric Metcalfe, barrister at Monckton Chambers and former director of human rights policy at JUSTICE, to act on a 'pro bono' basis.

In a statement after last week's 'ex tempore' hearing, Gadd said that while he was "disappointed" the case was ultimately dismissed, he was pleased that the court had agreed that his rights under Article 6 were breached, giving him an "absolute determination" to take the case to Strasbourg.

He said his claim at the High Court was based partly on the belief that the "time in which to challenge an intervention (eight days - but without 48 hours notice, so six days in reality)" was not compliant with rights to a fair hearing.

Gadd protested outside the regulator's offices in 2011. The High Court rejected his claim for breaches of human rights and damages against the regulator last year.

The SRA commented: "In dismissing his application the Court of Appeal said that they were not satisfied that a lack of resource was a justifiable basis for not having bought proceedings within eight days as required under the statutory scheme for intervention.

"The High Court also commented that it was plainly critical for Mr Gadd to have acted quickly, however he took no steps on the intervention until after one year.

"The SRA will consider the Court of Appeal judgment when it is released but does not accept that any of Mr Gadd's Article 6 rights were found to have been breached or that this refusal to grant permission to appeal has brought about any change in the law."

The regulator said Gadd had failed to challenge within time the intervention into two firms, in which he was a partner and sole practitioner respectively, through the "long-established procedure" under the Solicitors Act 1974.

"Instead Mr Gadd bought a claim for damages against the SRA for a breach of his Article 6 and Article 1 rights. The human rights claim was bought almost a year after the intervention."