The High Court has dismissed solicitor Sadaf Ijaz’s appeal against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision upholding a rebuke imposed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
In Ijaz v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd [2026] EWHC 1810 (Admin), Deputy High Court Judge Alan Bates found that Ijaz could not rely on her grounds because they were filed more than four months late and that the appeal would have failed on its merits in any case.
Ijaz, a Birmingham solicitor whose practice is registered with the SRA as Safaaz Solicitors, filed her notice of appeal on 12 November 2025 but did not submit her grounds until 31 March 2026, 16 days before the hearing. She had not sought permission to rely on the late grounds, which Judge Bates found would have been unfair to the SRA to admit at that stage.
The proceedings arose from costs orders made against Ijaz in two separate cases. In proceedings before the Birmingham District Registry of the High Court and Birmingham County Court, she was required to pay costs of £6,300 by 12 August 2019 and £9,220.19 by 22 March 2022. The SRA found that both sums remained unpaid beyond their respective deadlines, although Ijaz eventually discharged them.
The regulator issued a rebuke after finding that her conduct breached Outcome 5.3 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 and paragraph 2.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs 2019. Both provisions required her to comply with court orders imposing obligations upon her. An SRA adjudication panel upheld the sanction, followed by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal when Ijaz challenged the decision.
Judge Bates also considered the three grounds that Ijaz had sought to introduce. They concerned the inclusion of VAT in the SRA’s costs, the SDT’s refusal to hear her case in private and the tribunal’s treatment of an application to stay one of the earlier costs orders. He found that none had merit.
The SDT had been entitled to assess the adjudication panel’s reasoning as a whole, and any minor factual error made no material difference to its decision.
The High Court ruling emphasises the procedural requirements governing appeals from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Solicitors and barristers handling SDT proceedings should ensure that grounds accompany the appeal notice or seek permission promptly if they are filed late.
Law firms whose principals face Solicitors Regulation Authority proceedings should assign clear responsibility for deadlines, hearing preparation and compliance with court directions. Ijaz v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd shows that potentially arguable points will not overcome a failure to take the procedural steps required to place them properly before the court.