Solicitors reprimanded as cross-examination exposes client’s inability to speak English

A solicitors’ firm has been reprimanded by a judge over a client whose inability to speak English was exposed only as he was giving evidence in the High Court. 

The clients, Joginder Singh and Tarsem Singh, had brought claims against Rajinder Kalia, the founder and priest of a temple in Coventry dedicated to the worship of a Hindu deity. They sought restitution and/or equitable compensation for financial outlay and in respect of loan agreements entered into with Kalia’s business BJ finance.

They also sought equitable compensation for travel costs to India and for unpaid work. Kalia denied all the claims and said any unpaid work was by way of seva, or work undertaken voluntarily as part of their devotional duty to the deity, Baba Balak Nath.

Their claims were struck out however when, on 4 July in the High Court, Joginder Singh gave evidence and was being cross-examined by Sarah Crowther KC for Kalia.

Giving judgment in Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia, Mr Justice Martin Spencer said: ‘In the course of Mr Singh’s evidence it became clear that, although his witness statement is in English and he affirmed its accuracy he cannot in fact speak English at all. His only language is Punjabi. Indeed, he said through an interpreter that he cannot read or write at all.’

Mrs Singh was in the same position and the judge said he had a ‘suspicion’ that the engagement of their solicitors, Peacock & Co, with the claimants had been through their daughter, though emphasised that was just ‘speculation’. 

‘If that is the case it seems to me at first blush that the solicitors have not done their duty appropriately in this case in that they have not engaged directly with the claimants, they have not established that which ought to have been established well in advance of this trial in relation to their ability to read and speak English, and this should have been raised at the pre-trial review so that appropriate steps could be taken’, Spencer said.

‘For this to have arisen in the course of cross-examination of Mr Singh by Ms Crowther is wholly unacceptable and, I agree, amounts to a virtual contempt of the proceedings of this court. In those circumstances, it would be quite wrong for me to exercise my discretion to give the claimants any sort of indulgence, given also the wasted costs which that would entail.’

Joginder Singh and Tarsem Singh’s claims were struck out.