Sadaf Ijaz rebuked after failing for years to comply with court cost orders totalling £15,500
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has issued a public rebuke to Birmingham solicitor Sadaf Ijaz after she failed to comply with two separate court orders requiring her to pay more than £15,000 in costs.
Ijaz, principal of Safaaz Solicitors in Sparkhill, Birmingham, was personally involved in two sets of litigation where she acted as claimant. In both cases she was ordered to pay costs but delayed compliance for years, despite clear obligations set by the courts.
In the first matter, the Birmingham District Registry of the High Court ordered her on 2 August 2019 to pay £6,300 by 12 August 2019. Ijaz failed to meet that deadline, only paying £2,000 four weeks late to prevent bankruptcy proceedings being issued. The balance was not settled until 22 June 2022, almost three years after the original order. An appeal against the 2019 costs order was struck out in September 2020, and she had not applied for a stay of the order in the meantime.
In the second case, at Birmingham County Court, an order dated 8 March 2022 required her to pay £9,220.19 by 22 March 2022. Ijaz again failed to comply, eventually paying in two instalments more than a year later, on 9 May and 2 June 2023.
Embed from Getty Images
The regulator concluded that Ijaz knew, or should have known, she had no good reason not to comply with the court orders. By deliberately failing to pay the costs on time, she showed a lack of judgment that fell below the standards expected of solicitors.
The SRA found she breached Outcome 5.3 of the Code of Conduct 2011, which requires solicitors to comply with court orders, and paragraph 2.5 of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019, which carries the same obligation.
While the regulator acknowledged that Ijaz eventually paid the sums in full, it noted that her compliance came only after unreasonable and lengthy delays. This behaviour, it said, amounted to deliberate and moderately serious misconduct.
In its decision, the SRA said: “She deliberately chose, without good reason, not to pay the costs when the court ordered her to do so. Her conduct showed a concerning lack of judgment that fell significantly below the standards expected of a solicitor.”
Given that the costs have now been paid, the SRA concluded that no lasting or significant harm had been caused to the recipients. However, the regulator stressed that public sanction was required to uphold confidence in the profession and the delivery of legal services.
The SRA determined that a rebuke was a proportionate outcome. It considered the matter did not require a more severe sanction such as a fine or referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, but emphasised that her failure to comply with two separate cost orders could not be overlooked.
Ijaz has been issued with a formal written rebuke and ordered to pay £600 towards the costs of the SRA’s investigation. The regulator stated that her actions had undermined public confidence and that publication of the decision was necessary to ensure transparency in the disciplinary process.
The rebuke will remain on the public record, serving as a warning to others in the profession of the importance of adhering to court orders promptly and without resistance.