The Court of Appeal has ruled that a legal disciplinary body should have struck off a solicitor that had been found to have acted dishonestly.

The closely watched judgment from Lord Justices Moore-Bick, Maurice Kay and Hooper handed down this week (3 April) found the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) should have struck off solicitor Anthony Dennison.

Dennison was fined £23,500 by the SDT in November 2009 for concealing his financial interest in Legal Report Services, a company involved with controversial claims farmer The Accident Group (TAG).

The ruling comes after a lengthy debate over whether acting dishonestly should result in disbarment. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) had launched an appeal in the High Court arguing dishonesty should always result in striking-off.

Dennison, who is currently joint managing partner of Dennison Greer Solicitors, argued in his appeal that the complexity of his offence meant he could be allowed to continue to practise.

Handing down the substantive judgment, Moore-Bick said: "I do not think that a large fine, even coupled with a period of suspension, could properly be regarded as an appropriate penalty in a case of this kind. The Divisional Court was conscious of the respect due to the decision of a professional tribunal of this kind, particularly one composed of such experienced members, but having considered the arguments in detail it concluded that none of them justified the [SDT's] decision, which it found to be clearly inappropriate… its conclusion was entirely justified."

The background to the story saw Dennison, then a partner at Manchester firm Rowe Cohen, keeping an interest Legal Report Services, which acted as an intermediary for obtaining expert evidence for claims handled by solicitors on the panel of TAG – including his own firm. He failed to disclose his interest in this company to his partners or to clients.

TAG collapsed in 2003 and Dennison sold his shares in February 2004, but did not disclose to his former partners that he had held an interest in Legal Report Services until July 2007. The SDT heard that this behaviour created a conflict between his financial interests on the one hand and his firm's duty to clients.

The SDT found he acted dishonestly in deliberately deceiving his partners because he wanted to retain the whole benefit of the interest for himself. The subsequent debate has concerned whether the SDT could impose a substantial fine rather than strike Dennison off.

SRA executive director David Middleton commented: "It was important to bring the appeal against the SDT's decision in this case to maintain the principle that a finding of dishonesty will almost invariably indicate that a solicitor is a risk to the public and therefore that strike off is the appropriate order to be made. We do not believe that substantial fining powers are a substitute for strike off when the risk to the public is substantial."

Dennison, who had appealed the original court ruling, was advised by Pinsent Masons, with Simon Monty QC of 4 New Square instructed as counsel. The SRA instructed Michael McLaren QC of Fountain Court.