A solicitor and his firm have been denied the opportunity to defend a libel claim against them after a 'persistent failure’ to engage with procedure rules.
Mrs Justice Collins Rice said the litigation conduct of Ajaz Ahmed and Merseyside-based Pure Legal Solicitors Limited had been 'oppressive and unjust’ and characterised by multiple and serious failures to comply with court orders.
The solicitor and the firm, defendants in Shah & Anor v Ahmed & Ors, had applied at the last minute to vacate the listing and postpone their trial. They faced a libel action by two prominent London-based Pakistani journalists, Murtaza Ali Shah of Geo News and The News International and Syed Mujtaba Ali Shah. The journalists initiated proceedings through their solicitors over posts on a Whatsapp group and a press release in Urdu and English making allegations of corruption, violence and hooliganism. The legal battle started after a press conference held in London by the law firm in 2019 concerning the 2016 murder in Islamabad of British-Pakistani barrister Fahad Malik.
The judge declined to adjourn the hearing and struck out the defence, entering judgment for the claimants on liability. Explaining her decision, she said only the claimants’ case had been properly pleaded and that it was just and proportionate to throw out the defence.
‘The defendants have been given repeated opportunities to re-establish their participation in the litigation on a satisfactory footing and to prepare for a fair trial of the claim, but have not acknowledged and taken those opportunities,’ said the judge. ‘Nor have they offered any good reason for failing to do so. They have been given clear and repeated warnings of the jeopardy that that places them in.’
The court heard that the defendants, named in the judgment as Ajaz Ahmed and Raja Usman Arshad, had failed to serve their defence on time despite a deadline extension. They did not comply with a deadline for exchanging directions questionnaires and failed to reply to the claimants’ indication they would apply to strike out the statutory defences.
The court initially rejected that application and gave the defendants an opportunity to amend their pleading while also imposing a £600 costs penalty. No payment was ever made – and neither was any payment offered to cover a later costs order for £8,000.
With the trial due to begin on 4 July (a Monday), an application was made on the previous Friday afternoon to vacate, citing Ahmed’s health. The statement in support of this application was unsworn and the accompanying doctor’s letter unsigned.
The judge expressed sympathy for Ahmed’s health issues but said there had been an ‘extensive history’ of poor engagement with these proceedings and that the hearing should go ahead.
She added that the defendants’ course of conduct had been ‘wasteful of court time and public resource, and wholly unfair to the claimants’.
‘It has denied them the opportunity to make out their case for vindication in a timely manner. The effect on the claimants is therefore highly prejudicial. It has also not only escalated the cost of these proceedings in an unwarranted manner, but kept the claimants out of funds to which they are clearly entitled.’
With liability for costs now resolved, quantum will be decided based on written submissions.
Murtaza Ali Shah told the Gazette: 'We stand vindicated and we are thankful to our lawyers and to the court for upholding the truth.'
