Gabriel
Awosika
Solicitor
401729
Decision - Prosecution
Outcome: Referral to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
Outcome date: 29 March 2025
Published date: 11 May 2026
Firm details
Firm or organisation at time of matters giving rise to outcome
Name: Astute Dynamic Ltd
Address(es): 92 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TY
Firm ID: 632641
Firm or organisation at date of publication
Name: Astute Dynamic Ltd (Director/Owner) & K & K Solicitors Limited (Consultant)
Address(es): 92 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TY & 12 Market Place, Hatfield AL10 0LN
Firm ID: 632641 & 636034
Outcome details
This outcome was reached by SRA decision.
Reasons/basis
This notification relates to a Decision to bring Disciplinary Proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.; This is an independent Tribunal which will reach its own decision after considering all the evidence, including any evidence put forward by the Solicitor. The Tribunal has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that:
- On or around 3 January 2020, he signed and served on the Court a witness statement containing information, which he knew or ought to have known was misleading in that he stated that he had served proceedings on the Defendant in Client A and B's matter on 20 June 2019, when he had not done so.
- On or around 3 January 2020, annexed to his second witness, a letter purportedly dated 20 June 2019 addressed to the Defendant in Client A and B's matter, which he knew or ought to have known was not created on that date when that letter had been created after 24 June 2019 and backdated.
- On or around 12 January 2020, signed and served on the Court a witness statement containing information which he knew or ought to have known was misleading in that he stated that he had served proceedings on the Defendant in Client A and B's matter on 20 June 2019, when he had not done so.
- On 18 June 2020, while giving oral evidence in relation to a strike-out application in Client A and B's matter, gave information to the Court, which he knew or ought to have known was misleading in that he relied on the letter purportedly dated 20 June 2019 annexed to his second witness statement and/or maintained that he had served proceedings on the Defendant on 20 June 2019.
The allegations are subject to a Hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.