(unnamed respondent)

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

Isobel Standing, a non-solicitor involved in a legal practice, applied to the SDT to review a Section 43 Order imposed by an SRA Adjudicator on 26 March 2025. The Adjudicator had found two allegations proved (inaccurate/misleading time-recording entries and inaccurate overtime claims) and found her conduct dishonest, all on the papers. The Tribunal found that fairness required an oral hearing where material facts and credibility were in dispute (applying Youssef v SRA), and that failing to offer one was a serious procedural error. The application was granted and the S43 Order was quashed/revoked. The Tribunal held the Adjudicator's decision was the decision of the SRA and that Baxendale-Walker did not preclude a costs award on a review; even if it applied, the serious procedural irregularity was a good reason to award costs. Costs claimed of £54,255 were reduced on summary assessment (leading counsel and excessive hours disallowed) and the SRA was ordered to pay £27,000. The Tribunal made no finding of dishonesty; it overturned the Adjudicator's dishonesty finding.

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]