Berivan Toprak Yildirim v Council for Licensed Conveyancers

On 20 June 2023 the respondent refused the appellant’s application to become a Licensed Conveyancer. The appellant responded by lodging an appeal with this Tribunal.

Upon being sent a copy of the appeal notice, the respondent applied for an order under rule 8(2)(a) striking out the proceedings on the basis that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to them. It asserted that no enactment confers a right of appeal to this Tribunal against the decision. The relevant appeal provision could instead be found at section 29(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1985:

In a witness statement submitted in response to the application, the appellant complained that no information had been provided with the decision explaining how to appeal to the Discipline and Appeals Committee. Instead, he had found the following website which appeared to suggest that there is a right of appeal to this Tribunal:

The page presently found at that link includes the following:

In a decision dated 24 November 2023, Judge McKenna gave the respondent permission to make further representations in response to the witness statement, and for the respondent to reply.

In its further submissions, the respondent acknowledges that the gov.uk website contains the above information but asserts that it is wrong: section 29(1) is clear, and the statutory instrument cited on the gov.uk website, which has the SI number 2011/2863, concerns appeals to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal against decisions by the Law Society concerning the licensing of Alternative Business Structures.

There is another, similarly-named statutory instrument, The Legal Services Act 2007 (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions) Order 2011/1712, which provides as follows:

The term “Council’s licensing rules” at article 4(1)(b) is confusing at first glance, because the respondent also refers to its regulation of individual practitioners as “licensing”. But I agree with the respondent that it must be read as part of the wider licensing scheme in Part 5 of the Legal Services Act 2007. This applies to a number of legal regulators and relates to the licensing of Alternative Business Structures, not regulation of individual practitioners. Taken together with the clear wording of section 29(1) of the 1985 Act, it becomes clear that this statutory instrument confers no right of appeal against decisions by the respondent to refuse to license an individual conveyancer.

The appellant’s further response simply repeats the complaint that no route of appeal was identified in the respondent’s decision. This is not a matter that I can take into account.

The appellant deserves sympathy for following gov.uk guidance that appears to be entirely wrong. But wrong or not, the guidance cannot confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to hear the appeal. Only an Act of Parliament (or a statutory instrument made under an Act of Parliament) can do that. There is no right of appeal to the Tribunal against the respondent’s decision and, applying rule 8(2)(a), the proceedings must be struck out.

A copy of this decision will be passed to those responsible for maintaining the relevant gov.uk content with a request that it be corrected.