High Court judge criticises ‘overworked’ solicitor after he missed email

A High Court judge has criticised a solicitor for failing to read a court email, finding that his failure to do so was likely because he was overworked.

Mrs Justice Hill highlighted the lack ‘of any robust system’ to ensure emails were read and acted upon, adding that solicitor Sarinjit Singh Bahia should have been expecting to receive communications from the court as he was aware an appeal had been issued, served and permission granted.

The judgment in Yan Deng & Anor v Meng Zhang & Anor centred on an application to set aside an order allowing an appeal in relation to a costs budget. Yan Deng, the first respondent and the claimant in the underlying claim, brought the application on the basis that he was unaware of the appeal hearing. Deng’s application was supported by a statement from Bahia who asserted he had not received notice of the appeal hearing, via an email sent on 22 December 2023, from the court or the other parties. 

In a second statement Bahia ‘apologised to the court for not attending the appeal hearing and for the fact that [his first statement] incorrectly submitted that he had not received notice of the hearing’.

The judge said: ‘It is perhaps unusual for a hearing to take place that has generated nothing more than one email between the parties and court, but that is what happened here. It might seem harsh to be critical of a solicitor for missing one email, but I am satisfied that such criticism is appropriate on the specific facts of this case.’

Although there was a ‘clear theme’ that Bahia was overworked, and ‘it is the likely reason’ for his failure to read the email from the court, ‘overwork alone is unlikely to assist a solicitor in obtaining relief from sanctions’, the judgment said.

It added: ‘Mr Bahia’s failure to read the court’s…email needs to be seen in the context of the repeated examples of the first respondent’s non-compliance with court orders and the disorganised and unhelpful conduct of the claim overall, including of this application. I add for completeness that Mr Bahia did not comply with the court deadline for providing amendments to this draft judgment or any applications for consequential orders.’

The application brought by Deng was dismissed on its merits. Submissions on costs were directed to be made within 14 days of the judgment after Bahia informed the court Deng was changing representatives.