SDT rejects solicitor’s appeal after findings of deliberate non-compliance with court orders
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has rejected an appeal by solicitor Sadaf Ijaz against a rebuke imposed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for repeated failures to comply with court costs orders. The tribunal upheld the original findings and said there was no basis to admit late evidence intended to show that she had sought a stay of the orders.
An SRA adjudicator had found that Ms Ijaz failed to comply with a costs order made in July 2019 and a further order made in March 2022. Ms Ijaz is a director of Safaz Legal in Birmingham and was represented before the tribunal by Rory Dunlop KC. He explained that she had been involved in frequent litigation with her office landlords, during which the orders arose.
In July 2019, His Honour Judge Barker QC dismissed her claim against the landlords and ordered her to pay their costs of £5,250 by 12 August 2019, along with further costs. She paid part of the hearing costs in September 2019. She applied for permission to appeal and selected the option requesting a stay on enforcement.
In November 2019, the landlords succeeded on their counterclaim. Ms Ijaz paid the damages and costs relating to that judgment. The appeal she had lodged was struck out in September 2020, and it was submitted on her behalf that she did not become aware of this outcome for some time.
Embed from Getty Images
A district judge made a further costs order of £9,200 in February 2022. Ms Ijaz paid the balance of the first order in August 2022 and the second order in June 2023. The adjudicator concluded that although she may have intended to obtain a stay, she did not in fact secure one. The adjudication panel agreed and upheld the rebuke.
Before the tribunal, Mr Dunlop sought to introduce new evidence, which he said showed that a stay had been requested. He argued that the adjudicator had made a mistake of fact. The tribunal held that once Ms Ijaz received the adjudicator’s decision, it must have been clear that no stay had been identified. It said she did not act with reasonable diligence in correcting the position when applying to the adjudication panel and later to the tribunal. She had not explained her lack of action adequately.
The tribunal held that there was nothing exceptional in the circumstances to justify admitting the new material. It further concluded that even if a mistake of fact existed, it would not have altered the adjudication panel’s finding that her non-compliance with the 2019 order had been deliberate. The tribunal ruled that any such error was not material.
The tribunal also ordered Ms Ijaz to pay costs of almost £10,800. Five days before the hearing, she applied for the proceedings to be held in private and anonymised. Her advocate said she was concerned about the potential publication of her residential address and the risk of harassment. The tribunal held that Parliament had not intended for appeals of this type to be private and that no evidence of exceptional hardship or prejudice had been shown. It rejected the application.
The tribunal also dismissed an SRA application to pursue a strike out of the appeal.