The High Court has dismissed Sadaf Ijaz’s appeal against a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal decision upholding a written rebuke imposed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
In Ijaz v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd [2026] EWHC 1810 (Admin), handed down on 16 July, Alan Bates, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, criticised the way Ijaz had conducted the proceedings. She did not attend the hearing and was not represented.
Ijaz, who was admitted as a solicitor in 2002, received the rebuke after the SRA found that she had deliberately failed to comply with court orders requiring her to pay costs. She challenged that decision before the SDT, which dismissed her appeal and ordered her to pay the regulator’s costs. She then appealed the tribunal’s decision to the High Court.
Solicitors handling regulatory appeals must treat the grounds as an essential part of commencing proceedings rather than something that can be supplied later without the court’s permission. Ijaz filed her appeal notice without any grounds, leaving the court to conclude that no grounds were properly before it.
The three grounds she subsequently sought to introduce were found to have no merit. Alan Bates said he would therefore have dismissed the appeal even if he had allowed them to be admitted.
The procedural failure was not considered in isolation. The judge referred to repeated failures to meet requirements and advance the High Court appeal competently, although Ijaz was a solicitor and had previously been represented in the appeal by her own firm.
He also noted that the proceedings before the SDT had involved very late applications, including an attempt to introduce fresh evidence and applications for adjournments. The court did not determine whether the conduct resulted from a deliberate strategy to impede and delay the proceedings, an unduly casual approach to procedural requirements and deadlines or another cause, but the judge described it as troubling.
The High Court’s decision shows the consequences of filing an appeal against an SDT ruling without grounds. Firms representing their own principals should assign clear responsibility for preparing the grounds, assembling evidence, monitoring deadlines and arranging representation, just as they would when acting for an external client.
Late grounds may not be considered, particularly where they would make no difference to the outcome. Following Ijaz v Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd, solicitors challenging an SDT decision should seek permission promptly if their appeal notice was filed without complete grounds.