A solicitor has failed in his bid to vary a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal costs order after a High Court judge found the court had no jurisdiction to do so.
Naim Lone, admitted in 1996, was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay costs of £29,359 over his failure to comply with a court order. He appealed against the SDT’s findings and sanction which was dismissed in the High Court in February last year.
Lone, who represented himself, appeared in the Rolls building this week to make two applications, including one seeking to vary the SDT’s order to allow him to pay the fine and costs in instalments. All applications were dismissed by Deputy Master Rhys, sitting on behalf of Master Kaye.
Considering the application to vary the costs order against Lone, the judge said: ‘I think the outcome is clear, I think I am bound to dismiss your two applications Mr Lone.’
The court ‘simply does not have jurisdiction’ to vary the SDT costs order as the ‘order was not made by the court’, he said.
He added: ‘The costs order was made by an entirely sperate tribunal, namely the Solicitors Discplinary Tribunal, and any attempt to vary that order or set it aside must be carried through by statutory appeal route, not by making an application to the High Court to vary the order. On the jurisdiction basis it seems to me that the application must fail, if indeed we take the application that you made as one which relates to the SDT order and not [a different costs] order.’
The judge dismissed the second application for directions as the matter had already been determined by an ICC judge at an earlier hearing. He added: ‘The long and short of it is essentially…both on a procedural basis and jurisdictional basis both applications must be dismissed.’
The judge said he was ‘troubled by the existence of the claim number’ which Lone had been given with the assumption ‘there would be some claim under that’. He added: ‘But until the existence of a part 8 claim is commenced it is difficult for me to see what the claim is. It is not obviously an application for judicial review because that has failed, and the administrative court washed its hands of it so, what is it?
‘If it is an application for reinstatement under the Companies Act then that must be commenced under the part 8 claim form.’
Lone was also ordered to pay £5,000 costs inclusive of VAT.
Naim Lone represented himself. Benjamin Tankel, instructed by Capsticks, appeared on behalf of the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
