(unnamed respondent)
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
Ms Ijaz, a solicitor, appealed under Section 44E of the Solicitors Act 1974 against an SRA Adjudicator's decision (upheld by the Adjudication Panel) to rebuke and publish details of the rebuke for failing to comply with two court costs orders. She applied for the hearing to be held in private/anonymised (refused for lack of exceptional hardship/prejudice) and sought to adduce fresh evidence (an appellant's notice showing she had ticked a box applying for a stay) on the basis of a mistake of fact. The Tribunal refused to admit the fresh evidence, finding she had failed to act with reasonable diligence under Ladd v Marshall and that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying flexibility. The Tribunal held that any error of fact regarding the stay application was not material to the Adjudication Panel's decision, which was based on a finding of deliberate, prolonged non-compliance. The appeal was dismissed and the rebuke affirmed. No express finding of dishonesty was made. Costs of £10,791 were ordered against the appellant.
Duties found breached:
Aggravating factors:
- Lengthy period of deliberate non-compliance with the 2019 costs order (not paid in full until August 2022)
- Continued non-compliance even after Ms Ijaz knew by September 2020 that her appeal had failed
- Continued non-compliance after being contacted by the SRA in December 2021
Mitigating factors:
- Ms Ijaz had lodged an appeal and intended to apply for a stay pending appeal
- She eventually paid the sums due under both costs orders