Erison Balaj & Ors. Secretary of State for the Home Department

Erison Balaj & Ors. Secretary of State for the Home Department

There was no breach of professional conduct standards or the indemnity principle by AR or ZJ; the conduct complained of does not engage the court's powers under CPR 44.11; costs in the main actions remain as assessed; no order as to costs on the conduct issue.

Parties
Claimant/receiving Party: Erison Balaj; Claimant/receiving Party: Mubashar Irshad; Claimant/receiving Party: Muhammad Aamir; Claimant/receiving Party: Greta Ndreu; Claimant/receiving Party: Ghulam Farooq; Claimant/receiving Party: Hasnain Ahmed Khan; Claimant/receiving Party: Umar Waqas; Claimant/receiving Party: Quhyum Hussain Syed; Defendant/paying Party: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Judgment on Conduct Issues
Outcome
no order as to costs on conduct issue; costs in main actions remain as assessed
Legal Topics
Hourly Rates, Indemnity Principle, Conflict of Interest, Codes of Conduct, Detailed Assessment, Judicial Review Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Law Professional Conduct Hourly Rates Indemnity Principle Conflict of Interest Codes of Conduct Detailed Assessment +1 more

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 8 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erison Balaj

Claimant/receiving Party

Mubashar Irshad

Claimant/receiving Party

Muhammad Aamir

Claimant/receiving Party

Greta Ndreu

Claimant/receiving Party

Ghulam Farooq

Claimant/receiving Party

Hasnain Ahmed Khan

Claimant/receiving Party

Umar Waqas

Claimant/receiving Party

Quhyum Hussain Syed

Claimant/receiving Party

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/paying Party

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Judgment on Conduct Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether AR breached professional conduct standards by instructing counsel at IC while ZJ was a pupil there
  2. 2 Whether the indemnity principle was breached
  3. 3 Whether costs should be disallowed or reduced for alleged misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

There was no breach of professional conduct standards or the indemnity principle by AR or ZJ; the conduct complained of does not engage the court's powers under CPR 44.11; costs in the main actions remain as assessed; no order as to costs on the conduct issue.

Court Disposition

no order as to costs on conduct issue; costs in main actions remain as assessed

Orders

  • No order as to costs on conduct issue
  • Costs in main actions remain as assessed