London practitioner was found to have ‘knowingly given untrue evidence’ in a High Court claim.

A solicitor struck off for giving untrue evidence to the High Court is mounting an appeal against his erasure from the roll.

Ramachandren Narayanasamy, admitted in 2004, was found to have given evidence which was ‘evasive, obfuscatory and lacking in candour’ in a High Court claim brought by a former employee of his firm Dotcom Solicitors.

Edwin Lewis sued Narayanasamy, 58, for sums due shortly after the termination of his contract in 2010, including a 10% share of the firm’s gross turnover which Lewis said he was promised when he was hired.

In 2015, the High Court gave judgment against Narayanasamy for £66,885.82, representing 10% of the firm’s gross turnover for the relevant period, and unpaid salary of £6,500. An appeal against the ruling was dismissed in 2017.

Stephen Morris QC, sitting as a High Court judge, also found Narayanasamy gave ‘deliberately evasive and obfuscating’ evidence about helping Lewis obtain a work permit to enter the UK and had given ‘contradictory and shifting’ evidence about Dotcom’s earnings.

Last January, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found Narayanasamy had ‘knowingly given untrue evidence in the civil claim’ because he ‘stood to gain financially’ and struck him off the roll, ruling that ‘the protection of the public and of the reputation of the profession demanded nothing less’.

Narayanasamy applied on Tuesday to adduce fresh evidence at the substantive appeal hearing, which has not yet been listed.

His barrister Ijeoma Omambala QC said medical evidence could provide a ‘possible explanation for both the content of the appellant’s evidence and demeanour which the disciplinary tribunal noted and commented adversely upon’.

Omambala told Mr Justice Saini that the evidence should be admitted, especially in circumstances where Narayanasamy’s ‘professional career and livelihood are on the line’.

James McClelland QC, for the SRA, opposed the application, arguing that it would be an ‘alarming development’ if appellants could adduce such evidence on an appeal having ‘positively represented’ to the SDT that they did not wish to do so.

Saini J reserved his judgment on the fresh evidence application, saying he aimed to give judgment later this week.