The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Tinka Zapryanova against the refusal of leave to challenge a Legal Services Regulatory Authority decision on her complaint against barrister Declan Wade BL. The complaint had been declared inadmissible at preliminary review. The court did not determine a negligence claim or make a fresh disciplinary finding against either legal practitioner.
The complaint arose from a personal injuries case following a road traffic accident in November 2017. Wade drafted a summons and sent it to solicitor Mr Power in January 2020 for Zapryanova’s approval. She did not respond at the time. After the partnership of Bernard L. Gaughran & Co. dissolved in July 2020, Power continued handling the file through his own firm. In December, he emailed Zapryanova to tell her about the dissolution and ask her to choose a new firm; she did not reply.
Concerned that the limitation period might expire, Power sought Wade’s advice. Wade advised issuing the proceedings to protect the claim, and Power did so in February 2021 using the original draft. Zapryanova said she later discovered the proceedings through an online search and objected that they had been issued without her approval and did not accurately reflect her injuries. She also alleged that Wade should have checked Power’s authority and advised her directly about the deadline and an alleged conflict of interest.
In February 2023, the Authority ruled the complaint inadmissible, finding it had no reasonable chance of success. It said Wade was not responsible for telling Zapryanova that her solicitors’ partnership had dissolved or for issuing proceedings, and that he had acted on the instructions he received. The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review. The appeal concerned that refusal, not a full hearing of the underlying complaint.
The Court of Appeal held that counsel could presume a solicitor had authority to act for a client and was not required to verify that authority. It said Power, rather than Wade, was responsible for issuing the proceedings. The court also concluded the advice to issue them was given in good faith to protect the claim while the limitation deadline approached. It said Zapryanova had not provided particulars showing a conflict of interest that would trigger the alleged duty under the Bar’s code of conduct.
The court dismissed the appeal, rejecting the challenges to the complaint determination and the High Court process. It did not make a final costs order in the judgment: its preliminary view was that the Authority should recover its appeal costs, while allowing Zapryanova 28 days to make written submissions seeking a different order, followed by a further 28 days for any reply.