A significant High Court decision has been made regarding solicitor Naim Lone’s attempt to vary a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) costs order.
- Naim Lone, fined for non-compliance, sought to pay the £29,359 costs in instalments, but his applications were dismissed.
- The High Court affirmed it lacks jurisdiction to alter SDT orders, which must be legally appealed, not varied.
- Complication arose with the existence of a claim number without proper initiation of a judicial review or other claim.
- Lone, representing himself, faced dismissal of both application attempts by the High Court.
In a notable High Court ruling, solicitor Naim Lone’s appeal to modify a costs order from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was rejected. The court highlighted its lack of jurisdiction in the matter, as SDT orders are beyond its purview and can only be challenged through statutory appeal routes.
Lone had been fined £8,000 for failing to comply with a court directive and was additionally required to pay costs amounting to £29,359. Choosing to represent himself, Lone appeared at the Rolls building seeking to make payments in instalments, but his efforts saw dismissal from the bench.
Deputy Master Rhys, acting for Master Kaye, unequivocally dismissed Lone’s applications. Her remarks underscored the jurisdictional constraints faced by the court, noting that the SDT, an independent tribunal, had issued the costs order, making it immune to High Court modification.
The Deputy Master stated, “I think the outcome is clear, I think I am bound to dismiss your two applications Mr Lone.” She further elucidated that any alterations to the order should be pursued through a statutory appeal process rather than a High Court application.
Presenting a procedural and jurisdictional dilemma, the existence of a claim number without any initiated judicial review or specific claim complicated the proceedings. It was noted that unless a part 8 claim form was commenced, it would remain unclear what Lone’s claim entailed.
Additionally, Lone was ordered to pay a further £5,000 in costs inclusive of VAT for the ongoing proceedings. The absence of adequate procedural follow-through in this case highlights essential gaps in navigating legal appeals and cost orders when representing oneself.
The High Court’s ruling reinforces the procedural rigidity surrounding Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal orders and highlights the necessity of understanding appeal processes.
