London firm Kingsley Napley is suing a wealthy businessman for unpaid fees after his attempt to cancel an offender notification order failed. Simon Halabi, who was an original developer of London's Shard skyscraper, is counter-suing for alleged negligence - which the firm denies. 

On the first day of a five-day hearing, the county court heard that Halabi, now 64, was convicted of a sexual offence in France in 1998 under a different first name. The Metropolitan Police learned of his conviction after being notified by the French authorities and applied for a notification order in 2017. It would mean certain restrictions for Halabi, including notifying police whenever he travelled.

Halabi instructed Kingsley Napley to argue that the order should not be imposed. The order was eventually granted by magistrates and then again at Southwark Crown Court following an appeal. 

The firm is suing the businessman for unpaid fees while Halabi claims the firm did not tell him about the possibility of pursuing his case through judicial review rather than through the magistrates' court.

Kingsley Napley denies negligence.

The county court heard that Halabi is countersuing for costs including those of an appeal for which Kingsley Napley was not instructed. Kingsley Napley’s bill reached around £59,000.

When asked if he agreed that Kingsley Napley was not required to discuss judicial review, Halabi told the court: ‘Of course I disagree, why was I there if not for advice? At the outset I was never told about [judicial review] until later on.’

It was suggested in court that in a bid to maintain his privacy and avoid any media interest, Halabi would always have chosen to have his case heard by magistrates.

He replied: ‘I would go for judicial review, I need success, not privacy. I need certainty, I need success. Why pursue magistrates if judicial review is more successful?’

His Honour Judge Roberts asked: ‘What if there is no successful option?’

Halabi replied: 'But at least I would be given options.' He added: 'I should have been told about the judicial review even if it might not be successful. But the option of judicial review was never mentioned.'

Halabi agreed that he would have followed his lawyers’ advice if they had said his case was more likely to succeed before magistrates than at judicial review, the court heard.

The hearing continues.