This case concerns allegations brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority against the Respondent, Mr John Kishin Navani, relating to his conduct while in a position of seniority, as a partner at Criminal Defence Solicitors LLP between June 2016 and February 2019.

The SRA alleged that the Respondent engaged in behaviour that was inappropriate and/or amounted to harassment and/or bullying towards five individuals who worked at the Firm (Persons A–E) comprising five allegations 1.1–1.5, and in respect of Allegation 1.6, that certain conduct was sexually motivated in respect of Person E. The allegations were set out in six schedules comprising 50 particulars.

The Tribunal heard evidence from Persons A–E and other witnesses over hearings in December 2024 and November–December 2025. Person A’s evidence was initially taken out of turn for medical reasons and was heard in the absence of the Respondent, who withdrew after an application for an adjournment made on his behalf was refused. The Respondent participated fully in the remainder of the hearing, which included the evidence of all other witnesses and the cross-examination of certain aspects of Person A’s evidence after the Tribunal granted permission for her to be recalled.

The Tribunal determined that inappropriate conduct must be assessed against the relevant SRA Principles and Outcomes and for seriousness and culpability; it is not a residual category for conduct falling short of harassment or bullying. The Tribunal adopted the legal framework drawn from section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 for harassment, applied the widely accepted description of bullying, and considered sexual misconduct in light of Shah v GMC [2025] EWHC 899 (Admin). Sexual motive was assessed using the definition in Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin).

The Applicant contended that the allegations, viewed collectively, revealed a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, escalating from seemingly minor incidents (such as demands for sweets and/or “treats” after holidays) to serious disciplinary meetings and, ultimately, the events following the Christmas party involving Person E. The Respondent denied most allegations in his Answer to the Rule 12 Statement, asserting that allegations against him were either fabricated or amounted to reasonable management instructions. He subsequently retreated from his position that the allegations were fabricated and amounted to collusion during the hearing. He however argued that the allegations were inconsistent and did not meet the threshold for professional misconduct.

The Tribunal found the evidence of Persons A–E to be truthful and credible. Minor discrepancies did not detract from the cogency of their accounts. The Respondent’s evidence was unconvincing and lacked credibility, and the Tribunal rejected suggestions of collusion or fabrication in respect of the complainants. Of the 50 particulars comprising six allegations, 43 were proved in their entirety, two were proved in part, and five were not proved. One allegation was found to be sexually motivated within the meaning of Basson v GMC [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin). The Tribunal’s findings on each allegation, including breaches of Principles and Outcomes, are summarised in the tables below for Allegations 1.1–1.6.