[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Sayeed v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2010] EWHC 2548 (Admin) (01 July 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/2548.html Cite as: [2010] EWHC 2548 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		1 July 2010

1. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: Mohammed Sayeed served on this court and on the Solicitors Regulation Authority, a notice appealing a decision of that authority to strike him off the Register of Foreign Lawyers. The tribunal did that, having found him guilty of a number of matters.
2. The date on which the findings were filed with the Law Society is 17 December 2009. The appeal notice was received by the Administrative Court on 9 February. On 30 March 2010, Mr Sayeed sent to the solicitors for the respondent a skeleton argument, which can be found at page 4 of the bundle prepared for us by the respondent. From that skeleton argument it appears that the appellant is challenging the decision not to grant him an adjournment on the grounds of his ill health. Both the appellant's notice and the letter of 30 March give the same address "... 277 Henley Road, Ilford, IG1 2TM".
3. On 26 May, the Administrative Court sent Mr Sayeed a notice of today's hearing. He was also given a notice of hearing by the respondent. On 23 June, the respondent's solicitors sent Mr Sayeed, at the address that I have mentioned, a letter by recorded delivery. That starts with the heading:

"Your appeal to the Admin Court against the Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal, 1 July 2010".

In other words, by two separate routes, if not others, Mr Sayeed was made aware that the hearing was today. The letter went on to inform Mr Sayeed that, because of his failure to prepare the appeal bundle, the respondent had done so and enclosed with the letter is what is quite a substantial file.

4. Mr Sayeed is not here today and, in my view, the proper course now is to dismiss this appeal on the grounds of want of prosecution.
5. MRS JUSTICE RAFFERTY: I agree.
6. MR WILLIAMS QC: My Lord, my Lady, I make an application for costs on behalf of the respondent. It is not a straightforward matter for the court in the case of an absent appellant whose financial standing must be open to question, but there are two routes, if I may venture to suggest, the court can either order a detailed assessment of costs or can have a look at the schedule today. Mr Sayeed has had a copy of the schedule, but he would not have had it before yesterday, although that does comply with the rules.
7. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: Do you want to show us the schedule.
8. MR WILLIAMS QC: I certainly seek an order. I produce two copies of the schedule that was sent to Mr Sayeed and which he will have had.
9. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: When did he get sent that?
10. MR WILLIAMS QC: He got sent it on Tuesday of this week, so he would have had it yesterday.
11. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: So, in my judgment, I could have included that as a document being sent to him about the hearing?
12. MR WILLIAMS QC: May I check, my Lord, if it contained details. Yes, it is a letter of 29 June and it does make reference to today's hearing date.
13. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: I am going to add a passage in my judgment.
14. In addition to the letter from the Administrative Court of 26 May and the letter from the respondent's solicitor of 23 June, there was a further letter sent to him, at the correct address, dated 29 June 2010. By that letter, the respondent's solicitors served a schedule of costs but, for the purposes of the issue of his non-attendance today, it is important to note that, again, the letter starts with the words:

"Your appeal to the Admin Court against the Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal, 1 July 2010."

15. MR WILLIAMS QC: My Lord, my Lady, with respect to the schedule, obviously today's hearing has taken a great deal shorter time than was anticipated. This case was prepared properly, in my submission, on the basis that the SRA had to be ready to argue all and any aspects of the matter that this appellant may have pursued.
16. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: Thank you. We will retire.
(Court adjourned at 12.00pm and sat again at 12.03pm)
17. LORD JUSTICE HOOPER: In our view, the appropriate costs order here, having considered the schedule, and taking into account in particular the need to prepare an appeal bundle which has been prepared extremely well, the costs should be in the sum of £10,000 including VAT.
18. MR WILLIAMS QC: I am much obliged, my Lord.