The High Court has publicly criticised solicitor Sarinjit Singh Bahia for his “disorganised and unhelpful” handling of a claim, resulting in a refusal to set aside an order limiting his client’s costs budget to court fees.
Mrs Justice Hill found evidence that Mr Bahia had misled a King’s Bench master while seeking relief from sanctions due to the late submission of a costs budget. Although Mr Bahia cited overwork as a contributing factor, the court deemed this excuse inadequate and noted a pattern of non-compliance in his conduct.
During a cost and case management conference (CCMC) held in May 2023, Master Yoxall provided relief from the sanction of late filing, allowing the claimant to rely on his Precedent H costs budget form but opted to dispense with further costs budgeting. However, following an appeal by the defendants, Mr Bahia failed to file a respondent’s notice, submit written arguments, or attend the hearing in March. Consequently, Mr Justice Saini’s decision meant the claimant could only rely on the limited budget covering court fees.
Mr Bahia argued he had not received notice of the appeal hearing. He later acknowledged that his firm had received an email about the hearing date on 22 December, during the Christmas closure, which he overlooked. He only discovered the hearing had occurred upon receiving the order from Saini J. Hill J accepted that Mr Bahia was unaware of the hearing but criticised his lack of a system ensuring emails were read and addressed in a timely manner.
Despite acknowledging Mr Bahia’s unawareness, the judge stated: “It is perhaps unusual for a hearing to take place that has generated nothing more than one email between the parties and court, but that is what happened here. It might seem harsh to be critical of a solicitor for missing one email, but I am satisfied that such criticism is appropriate on the specific facts of this case.”
The court expressed further concerns over the absence of a structured system, relying solely on Mr Bahia or his assistant to manage emails. This lack of organisation was highlighted as a recurring issue in the case, reinforcing the court’s decision to maintain the criticism.
Mrs Justice Hill also considered the merits of the appeal, noting a significant argument that Master Yoxall had been misled about the costs budget being filed and served. This misrepresentation played a role in the decision to grant relief from sanctions and to dispense with costs budgeting, which the judge identified as a potential material irregularity in the proceedings.
The court has deemed the claimant’s rationale for not attending the appeal hearing insufficient, further criticised the solicitor’s handling of the case, and highlighted significant procedural failures.
