The High Court has delivered a stern critique of a solicitor for failing in his professional duties.
- Sarinjit Singh Bahia’s actions led to severe limitations on his client’s costs budget, impacting the outcome.
- Overwork was deemed an insufficient excuse for repeated non-compliance with court procedures.
- The solicitor admitted to not receiving a notice but this was considered inadequate by the court.
- The outcome highlights the critical importance of robust internal communication and management systems within law practices.
In a recent ruling, the High Court addressed the conduct of Sarinjit Singh Bahia, a solicitor who faced criticism for his handling of a case involving a data protection claim. The solicitor’s failure to attend a crucial hearing resulted in his client’s costs budget being restricted to court fees, significantly affecting the claim’s progress.
Mr. Bahia attributed his lapses partly to an overwhelming workload. However, the presiding judge, Mrs Justice Hill, dismissed this justification, highlighting a pattern of repeated non-compliance with court orders as a concerning issue. This case underlines the judiciary’s expectations for lawyers to manage their workload effectively and maintain professional responsibilities.
The defendants in the case succeeded in appealing a decision that initially granted the claimant relief from late submission of costs, partly because Mr Bahia failed to engage adequately with the appeal process. His lack of response, including not filing submissions or attending the hearing, resulted in the appeal succeeding by default.
Mr Bahia claimed he missed the appeal hearing notice because it was sent during the Christmas break and went unread. Whilst acknowledging his unawareness of the hearing, Hill J emphasised that this did not constitute a valid excuse under the circumstances. The judge noted that the lack of a robust system for managing emails and court communications contributed to this oversight.
The ruling also raised questions about the misrepresentation of facts during the relief application. The court found there was a “very good argument” that the original decision was influenced by misleading information provided by Mr Bahia and the claimant’s counsel. This aspect of the case had serious implications for the integrity of legal proceedings.
Ultimately, the claimant’s decision to change legal representatives suggests a need to rectify the issues arising from Mr Bahia’s management of their case. The judgment serves as a cautionary tale for legal professionals on the necessity of diligence and structured case management.
The High Court’s critique underscores the imperative for solicitors to maintain rigorous internal practices and uphold professional standards in legal processes.
