Alistair Ward Davies
Employee
299214

Decision - Employee-related decision

Outcome: Control of non-qualified staff (Section 43 / Section 99 order)

Outcome date: 27 March 2025

Published date: 1 April 2025

Firm details

Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome

Name: V.E. White & Co

Address(es): 10 Parkwood Green, Rainham, Gillingham, ME8 9PN

Firm ID: 438385

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by SRA decision.

Decision details

The SRA has put restrictions on where and how Mr Ward Davies can work in an SRA regulated firm. This is because it was found that Mr Ward Davies, who is not a solicitor, is or involved in a legal practice and has occasioned or been a party to an act or default which involved such conduct on his part that it is undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice in any of the ways described in the order below. The facts of the case Mr Ward Davies was employed by Janet & Sinden & Co (the firm).

He was made redundant on 30 June 2022, having signed a settlement agreement which involved the firm making a payment to him. The settlement agreement required Mr Ward Davies to confirm he had disclosed anything which might affect the firm's decision to enter into the agreement.

Before signing the agreement, he did not disclose that on 3 March 2022 he had received a caution for an offence contrary to section 1(1)(a) and (4) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and that the complainant was a client of the firm.

During the course of applying to be readmitted to the Roll, Mr Ward Davies disclosed the caution to the SRA which in turn notified the firm. The firm's Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP) then contacted Mr Ward Davies asking whether he had received a caution.

On 28 February 2024 and 19 March 2024, Mr Ward Davies emailed the firm's COLP stating he had not received a caution and provided a copy of a Basic DBS check, which did not record a caution, in support of that.

It was found that Mr Ward Davies acted dishonestly by provided false and misleading information in that he:

1. signed the agreement without having disclosed the caution and;
2. subsequently, on two occasions, denied having received a caution to the firm's COLP. Decision on outcome An order pursuant to section 43(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974 was imposed as Mr Ward Davies' conduct meant that it was undesirable for him to be involved in a legal practice without the SRA's prior approval.

Reasons/basis

The order pursuant to section 43 was made with effect from 28 days of the letter or email notifying Mr Ward Davies of this decision. Mr Ward Davies' conduct was serious because it was dishonest and, as such, would affect public trust and confidence in the profession. Mr Ward Davies was also ordered to pay the SRA's costs of £1,350.

Other information

What our Section 43 order means

1. no solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with his/her practice as a solicitor;
2. no employee of a solicitor shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the solicitor's practice;
3. no recognised body shall employ or remunerate him;
4. no manager or employee of a recognised body shall employ or remunerate him in connection with the business of that body;
5. no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to be a manager of the body; and
6. no recognised body or manager or employee of such a body shall permit him to have an interest in the body except in accordance with the SRA's prior written permission.