Dennison & Others

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

Dennison was an equity partner at a Manchester firm involved in The Accident Group (TAG) claims scheme. The SDT dismissed the most serious 'sham'/concealment and dishonesty allegations against him relating to the £20 AIL payments, and struck out other allegations, but found him in breach on conflict of interest (4a), the £310 AIL referral fee (4b, Rule 3), delayed reimbursement of interest (4c), and client care (4d). Crucially, on the LRS allegation the Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty (applying the Twinsectra test), holding he deliberately concealed his one-third interest in a medical reports company from partners and clients. The SDT fined him £23,500 (including £20,000 for LRS) and declined to strike him off. The SRA appealed successfully: the High Court quashed the fine and ordered him struck off, and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in 2012. Other respondents received fines of £1,000-£3,500; the Tribunal made no order as to costs save that Dennison pay the LRS costs (to be assessed).

Duties found breached:

• Disclose referrals, commissions and benefits
• No acting against a former client
• No own-interest conflict
• No conflict between current clients

Aggravating factors:

• Deliberately kept his one-third interest in LRS secret from partners and clients
• Deceived his partners so he could retain the profits (drew some £680,000 in dividends over 1999-2003 and sold his interest for a substantial sum)
• Gross breach of trust between partners and complete failure to notify clients
• Held the greatest knowledge of and involvement in the TAG scheme of all respondents

Mitigating factors:

• Long delay in bringing the proceedings (some five to six years), with allegations hanging over him
• Dennison had already settled his former partners' proceedings by paying them a considerable sum (~£400,000)
• No misappropriation of client money or serious breach of Accounts Rules
• No evidence clients failed to receive proper medical reports; no client loss of principal (the £310 was reimbursed from 2000)
• No member of the public would be at risk if he remained in practice (Tribunal's view at first instance)
• Conduct took place a long time ago in a changing landscape (Access to Justice Act, CFAs)