Sayeed v Solicitors Regulation Authority

An appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution where the appellant has been given adequate notice of the hearing but fails to attend. The court may also order costs after considering the work reasonably required to prepare for the appeal, including preparation of the appeal bundle.

The claimant appealed against a decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to strike him off the Register of Foreign Lawyers. His grounds included a challenge to the refusal of an adjournment on health grounds. The claimant did not attend the hearing, although the Administrative Court and the defendant’s solicitors had sent notices and correspondence to his stated address. The court therefore had to determine the appropriate course in his absence and the defendant’s application for costs.

1. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The claimant had been notified of the hearing by the Administrative Court and by the defendant’s solicitors. Further correspondence, including letters dated 23 and 29 June 2010, was sent to the correct address and expressly identified the hearing date.
2. The claimant’s absence, in those circumstances, justified disposing of the appeal without determining the substantive challenge to the tribunal’s decision.
3. The court considered the defendant’s application for costs. Although the hearing itself had taken substantially less time than anticipated, the defendant had been required to prepare properly on the basis that the claimant might pursue any aspect of the appeal. The court took particular account of the preparation of the appeal bundle, which it considered had been prepared extremely well.
4. Costs were ordered in the sum of £10,000 including VAT.

The claimant appealed to the Administrative Court against the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to strike him off the Register of Foreign Lawyers. The appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Court for want of prosecution.