Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited v Soophia Khan & Ors.

Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited v Soophia Khan & Ors.

The application to re-open the liability judgment was dismissed because the medical evidence did not displace the finality principle or establish Ms Khan as a protected party under CPR Part 21. The adjournment application was refused for similar reasons. Ms Khan's breaches of the Miles Order were serious, deliberate, and caused harm to clients and the administration of justice, justifying a custodial sentence. A 33% discount was applied for personal mitigation, resulting in a 12-month prison sentence.

Parties
Claimant: Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited; First Defendant: Soophia Khan; Second Defendant: Sophie Khan & Co Limited; Third Defendant: Just For Public Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Committal (contempt of Court) / Sanction Judgment Following Liability Judgment
Outcome
First Defendant sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for contempt of court; applications to re-open liability judgment and for adjournment refused.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Sanctions, Mental Capacity, Solicitors Regulation, Adjournment, Finality of Judgments
Civil Procedure Professional Regulation Contempt of Court Sanctions Mental Capacity Solicitors Regulation Adjournment Finality of Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited

Claimant

Soophia Khan

First Defendant

Sophie Khan & Co Limited

Second Defendant

Just For Public Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal (contempt of Court) / Sanction Judgment Following Liability Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should re-open the liability judgment due to the alleged protected party status of Ms Khan under CPR Part 21 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005
  2. 2 Whether an adjournment of the sanction hearing should be granted based on medical evidence
  3. 3 What is the appropriate sanction for breaches of the Miles Order by Ms Khan

Ratio Decidendi

The application to re-open the liability judgment was dismissed because the medical evidence did not displace the finality principle or establish Ms Khan as a protected party under CPR Part 21. The adjournment application was refused for similar reasons. Ms Khan's breaches of the Miles Order were serious, deliberate, and caused harm to clients and the administration of justice, justifying a custodial sentence. A 33% discount was applied for personal mitigation, resulting in a 12-month prison sentence.

Court Disposition

First Defendant sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for contempt of court; applications to re-open liability judgment and for adjournment refused.

Orders

  • Ms Khan sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for contempt, with sentences for breaches of paragraphs 1 and 5 of the Miles Order to run concurrently.
  • Order that Respondents are liable for contempt of court.