Report comment

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/2144.html

"District Judge Neaves handed down a written judgment at a hearing on 15 December 2014. He said of Ms Madhas that she was "a wholly unreliable witness" and that her evidence was "not only evasive and inconsistent, but dishonest" (see paragraph 78 of the judgment). He held all the allegations made against GSD to have been proved (including two relating to the bills of costs rather than the schedules that preceded them) and agreed with Mr Smith that the extent of the conduct and dishonesty of GSD was at the most serious end of the scale. He concluded (in paragraph 83):

"The conduct of the receiving party's solicitor is sufficiently egregious as to make the only appropriate sanction the disallowance of all costs on the sample files. The receiving party will also pay the costs of the assessment proceedings including the preliminary issues."

....

One of the allegations made in respect of the Ismail case merits specific mention. As expressed in the "Indictment-Style" list of allegations, this was that:
"In the Schedule, GSD claimed an hourly rate of £203 per hour, this being a false representation of what was reasonably claimable. This was for one or both of the following reasons: (i) it was a rate that exceeded the rate set out in Mr Ismail's fee agreement, and (ii) it was a rate that was grossly excessive given the fact that much of the work was carried out by a junior fee earner."

The £203 rate was, of course, consistent with the Ismail CFA attached to the "Reply to Allegations" (which District Judge Neaves termed "CFA 1") (see paragraph 16 above). At the hearing on 8 September 2014, Ms Madhas was asked to produce the original of this document, in response to which she produced two sheets of paper which, unlike CFA 1, contained no handwritten date and gave an hourly rate of £180 and so (as District Judge Neaves noted) could not be the original of CFA 1. Nor could a third document found in a trial bundle that also purported to be the CFA for Mr Ismail and which the District Judge called "CFA 3". As to this, the District Judge recorded that, in contrast to CFA 1, CFA 3 referred to an hourly rate of £180 and observed that "[t]he '6' of the handwritten date on CFA 3 does not appear to match the '6' that can be made out on CFA 1" (see paragraph 32 of the judgment). The District Judge went on (in paragraph 34):
"Upon further questioning by Mr Smith [Ms Madhas] accepted that CFA 1 was a forgery. She was unable to explain how that forged document came to be appended to the reply, although earlier during the hearing she had suggested that her administrative team had copied and sent over documents. To the extent that that is tendered as an explanation, I do not accept it. It is inconceivable that a solicitor, facing such serious allegations, would delegate to others the task of ensuring that the correct documents were before the courts."

I presume the SRA are looking into this ?