![David Lester (senior partner at Blythe Liggins), Darryl Barnes, Jagdeep Sandher (head of dispute resolution at Blythe Liggins)[4]](https://d1d8vslyhr7rdg.cloudfront.net/Pictures/274x183/4/2/8/116428_davidlesterseniorpartneratblytheligginsdarrylbarnesjagdeepsandherheadofdisputeresolutionatblytheliggins4_981603_crop.jpg)
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has refused Soophia Khan’s bid for a fresh hearing after she was struck off the roll in August.
Khan, who was jailed for contempt of court in January, was struck off by the tribunal in August for ‘dishonestly’ setting two former clients’ claims without their knowledge, and failing to cooperate with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the legal ombudsman.
The former chair of the Law Society’s civil justice committee tried to persuade the tribunal today to grant her application for a re-hearing on the grounds that the proceedings were determined in her absence. However, after hearing submissions from Khan and the SRA, the tribunal announced at lunchtime that her application was refused.
Carolyn Evans, chair of the panel, said the tribunal did not find Khan’s application to be an abuse of process. However the tribunal found that Khan was unable to rely on rule 37.1 of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019.
Rule 37.1 states that a party may apply to the tribunal for a re-hearing if the party neither attended in person nor was represented at the hearing of the application, and the application was determined in the party’s absence.
Having ruled on jurisdiction, the tribunal declined to hear submissions on exercising its discretion.
Khan had also sought a stay on the enforcement of the £109,681 costs order made against her by the tribunal on 5 August. Richard Wilkinson, for Khan, stressed his client was 'not trying to go behind the order made in the sense of the totality of the sum the tribunal decided should be paid. It's simply the mechanism for discharging that payment'.
However, Evans said the tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order. ‘The issue of enforcement is a matter for Ms Khan to resolve with the Solicitors Regulation Authority or submissions to the High Court. So this tribunal declines to deal with issues around costs arising from the substantive hearing.’
On the costs of today’s hearing, Rupert Allen, for the SRA, said the regulator did not have a separate application for costs because ‘the billing arrangements between Capsticks and the SRA are such that this additional application has not resulted in additional fees being payable to Capsticks by the fixed fee arrangement’.
The tribunal heard that Khan is appealing the tribunal's strike-off decision.
