Honesty Continues To Be A Poisoned Ivey

It has been two years since the Supreme Court judgment in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2018] AC 391. This set out the correct test when considering allegations of dishonesty and yet, in Solicitors Regulation Authority v Kwame Agyekum Siaw [2019] EWHC 2737 (Admin), the High Court determined that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had erred in law when applying it. As we see a continued increase in charges of dishonesty, this judgment gives a reminder of what is needed to prove dishonesty.

Mr Siaw was a partner at The Mountain Partnership Solicitors. He received payments from clients which he did not put through the firm's accounts. One payment came from a Mr K. Before the SDT Mr Siaw gave evidence that he had used the money from Mr K for outlays. This included £350 for an application for permission to apply for judicial review in Mr K's case. However the tribunal checked this with the court who confirmed that no such application had been made. There were other