SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY LIMITED v SOOPHIA KHAN

A person commits contempt by breaching a court order where, beyond reasonable doubt, the person had notice of the order, deliberately performed or omitted the relevant act, and knew the facts making that conduct a breach. The person need not appreciate that the conduct legally constitutes a breach.

Imprisonment is a last resort, reserved for serious, contumacious flouting of court orders. Sentence must reflect culpability and harm and may combine punishment with an incentive to comply. The High Court’s summary jurisdiction to strike a solicitor off the Roll is exceptional. It should be exercised only where justice requires that procedure and the case is clear.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority intervened in a solicitor’s practice and obtained two orders requiring the solicitor and associated companies to deliver practice documents and property. Both orders contained penal notices and permitted alternative service. No listed items were delivered, and the solicitor provided no witness statement explaining the non-compliance.

The regulator brought two committal applications alleging breach of paragraph 1 of each order. The solicitor admitted non-compliance but did not admit contempt. She relied on concerns about her mental health and maintained applications to set the orders aside, which the court dismissed.

The court determined liability, the appropriate sanction, and whether it should exercise its inherent supervisory jurisdiction to strike the solicitor off the Roll.

1. The committal applications were granted. The regulator proved beyond reasonable doubt that the solicitor had notice of both orders, failed to deliver any listed items, and knew the facts making her omissions breaches. She had received and seen both orders, admitted non-compliance, and provided no explanation under paragraph 5 of either order: paras [40]–[51].

2. Contempt did not require proof that the solicitor appreciated that her conduct legally constituted a breach. It was enough that she knew the orders’ terms and deliberately, rather than inadvertently, failed to comply. That approach was consistent with Varma v Atkinson [2020] Ch 180, P v P [1999] WL 477824 and Marketmaker Technology (Beijing) Co Ltd v CMC Group Plc [2009] EWHC 1445 (QB). Her professional experience, the penal notices, the prolonged breaches and her own reference to possible contempt proceedings established the required knowledge: paras [46]–[51].

3. A six-month custodial sentence was imposed, with three months suspended. The breaches were deliberate, prolonged and highly culpable. They defied both the court and the solicitor’s regulator and obstructed powers intended to protect clients and public confidence. Although no identifiable client harm had been proved, there had been no meaningful co-operation, remorse, excuse or acceptance of contempt: paras [52]–[66].

4. The court took full account of the solicitor’s lack of previous findings, hand injury, fragile psychological condition, financial position and the burdens of imprisonment during the pandemic. Nevertheless, the conduct amounted to serious, contumacious flouting of court orders, and no lesser sanction was justified. Three months addressed punishment, while a further three months secured compliance. The latter period was suspended on condition that both orders were obeyed within six weeks. Subject to section 258 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, compliance would permit release after six weeks: paras [64]–[67].

5. The application to strike the solicitor off the Roll was refused. The High Court’s summary supervisory jurisdiction is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, only where justice requires summary procedure and the case is clear. Ordinary proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal were more appropriate because the challenge to the intervention remained unresolved, wider mitigation might be relevant, and Penna v Law Society was distinguishable: paras [68]–[72].

• High Court: The court dismissed the applications to set aside the orders of 7 September 2021 and 21 September 2021 before handing down this judgment.
• Earlier High Court proceedings: The orders required delivery of practice documents and property and contained penal notices. The first was made after a hearing attended by the solicitor; the second was made without notice.