Judge blasts claimant lawyers for “appalling professional behaviour” in JR proceedings

A claimant legal team demonstrated “appalling professional misbehaviour” by submitting fake cases to the Administrative Court in a judicial review against the London Borough of Haringey and should be reported to their respective professional bodies, Mr Justice Ritchie has said. 

The judge's criticism of barrister Sarah Forey and solicitors at Haringey Law Centre followed a case in which Frederick Ayinde had applied to Haringey as homeless.

Mr Ayinde was initially denied accommodation and he sought a review and submitted additional medical evidence. Haringey upheld its original decision but this was later quashed by HHJ Hellman, who ordered Haringey to pay costs.

The professional behaviour the judge complained about arose when he examined the grounds advanced for Mr Ayinde by barrister Ms Forey, of 3 Bolt Court Chambers, and solicitors at Haringey Law Centre.

Mr Ayinde’s first ground was procedural impropriety in Haringey failing to follow section 188(3) and provide interim accommodation pending a decision on homelessness.

The case law cited was R (El Gendi) v Camden, but Ritchie J said it “turns out that the cited case does not exist”.

His second ground was failure to consider relevant evidence, where another non-existent case was cited as R (Ibrahim) v Waltham Forest [2019] EWHC 1873.

A third ground involved Wednesbury irrationality but the fourth claimed unfairness based partly on R (KN) v the London Borough of Lambeth on the application of Balogun, and R (on the application of KN) v Barnet, both of which also turned out to be imaginary.

Haringey applied for a wasted costs order because of the five fake cases, the law centre’s failure to produce copies of these when asked and that Mr Ayinde’s lawyers wrongly asserted that section 188(3) of the Housing Act 1996 was a ‘must’ provision instead of a discretionary ‘may’ provision.

Law centre staff member Sunnelah Hussain then sent Haringey what Ritchie J called “a remarkable communication” in which she said: “We regret to say that we still do not see the point you are making by correlating any errors in citations to the issues addressed in the request for judicial review in this matter.

“Admittedly, there could be some concessions from our side in relation to any erroneous citation in the grounds, which are easily explained and can be corrected on the record if it were immediately necessary to do so. What you have not done is to refute the veracity of the points and legal arguments that prevailed against your position and any failures of your client to measure up to its obligations under the 1996 Act.”

In a later paragraph Ms Hussain wrote: “We hope that you are not raising these errors as technicalities to avoid undertaking really serious legal research. Treating with citations is a totally separate matter for which we will take full responsibility. It appears to us improper to barter our client's legal position for cosmetic errors as serious as those can be for us as legal practitioners. For the foregoing reasons alone, your claim for costs and the costs of your letters are rejected as without foundation.”

Ritchie J said: “I do not consider that it was fair or reasonable to say that the erroneous citations could easily be explained and then to refuse to explain them.

“Nor do I consider it was professional, reasonable or fair to say it was not necessary to explain the citations. The assertion that they agreed to correct the citations before April never came true, for they never did. The assertion that no further explanation or obligation to provide an explanation was necessary or arose is, in my judgment, quite wrong.

“Worst of all, the assertion that the citations are merely cosmetic errors is a grossly unprofessional categorisation.”

When Ritchie J questioned Ms Forey about the non-existent cases, she said she kept a paper and digital list of cases and took the purported case of El Gendi from that.

Ritchie J said: “I do not understand that explanation or how it hangs together. If she herself had put together, through research, a list of cases and they were photocopied in a box, this case could not have been one of them because it does not exist.

“Secondly, if she had written a table of cases and the ratio of each case, this could not have been in that table because it does not exist.

“Thirdly…she should not have been making the submission to a High Court judge that this case actually ever existed, because it does not exist. I find as a fact that the case did not exist. I reject Miss Forey's explanation.”

The judge there was “a lot of substance” in the argument that Haringey failed to consider relevant evidence, but the case cited for this, R (on the application of Ibrahim) v Waltham Forest LBC [2019] EWHC 1873 (Admin), did not exist.

Ritchie J said: “The problem with that paragraph was not the submission that was made, which seems to me to be wholly logical, reasonable and fair in law, it was that the case of Ibrahim does not exist, it was a fake. I do find this extremely troubling.”

The judge said the only other explanation for the fake cases came from Haringey’s barrister David Mold, who suggested Ms Forey had used artificial intelligence.

Ritchie J said he could make no finding on this idea. Going through the other fake cases, he said: “I have no difficulty with the submission that the respondent local authority had to ensure fair treatment of applicants in the homelessness review process, but I do have a substantial difficulty with members of the Bar who put fake cases in statements of facts and grounds.”

He said the conduct of Ms Forey and the solicitors had been improper, unreasonable and negligent.

The judge explained: “It is wholly improper to put fake cases in a pleading. It was unreasonable, when it was pointed out, to say that these fake cases were 'minor citation errors’ or to use the phrase of the solicitors, ‘cosmetic errors’.”

He said Ms Forey should have reported herself to the Bar Council and the solicitors self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority as “I consider that providing a fake description of five fake cases, including a Court of Appeal case, qualifies quite clearly as professional misconduct”.

Ritchie J added: ”I find as a fact that Ms Forey intentionally put these cases into her statement of facts and grounds, not caring whether they existed or not, because she had got them from a source which I do not know but certainly was not photocopying cases, putting them in a box and tabulating them, and certainly not from any law report.

“I do not accept that it is possible to photocopy a non-existent case and tabulate it. Improper and unreasonable conduct are finding[s] about which I am sure. In relation to negligence I am unsure but I consider that it would fall into that category if Ms Forey obtained the text from AI and failed to check it.”

He said the behaviour of Ms Forey and the solicitors when Haringey questioned the fake cases “should not be left unexposed [and] it undermines the integrity of the legal profession and the Bar”.

Mr Justice Ritchie was also critical of some aspects of Haringey's conduct during the proceedings.

In August 2024, Mr Ayinde again requested interim accommodation and sent a letter before action to which Haringey failed to respond.

He sought accommodation under section 188(3) of the Housing Act 1996, pending a judicial review, but Haringey made no proper response and he was remained homeless.

After Mr Ayinde suffered a heart attack, David Lock KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, gave permission for judicial review, granted an interim housing order and made directions that within 35 days Haringey must file and serve a statement of facts and grounds of defence,

Ritchie J said: “[Haringey]… promptly breached this new direction and did not file a statement of facts and grounds of defence.”

This meant Haringey was barred from defending the case. The judge said Haringey had “taken part in a wholesale breach of court orders. It is, in my view, improper that they have failed to file a statement of facts and grounds of defence and an acknowledgement of service, and that they did not file skeletons and bundles on time.”

He added that the witness statement explaining why said little more than: ‘We didn't. It was my predecessor's fault’”, noting Haringey “pretty much admitted there was no good reason…”

The judge said the need for efficiency and proportionality, “does not save [Haringey] from their significant breaches for no good reason. In particular, in relation to compliance with court orders, the defendant provides no explanation and just ignored them. This is not an adequate explanation.” He refused Haringey’s request for refuse relief from sanctions.

Ritchie J said the parties later reached agreement on the substantive judicial review and Mr Ayinde had been accommodated, was no longer street homeless and an agreed order had been filed.

Looking at overall costs, the judge said Haringey’s failure to make a timely response to the judicial review was an important factor but “it does not, it seems to me, outweigh the appalling professional misbehaviour of the claimant's solicitors and the barristers in relation to the fake citations and the way, when those were raised, that they tried to finesse them into being 'minor citation errors’”.

Ritchie J reduced the £1,500 of counsel's fees for documentation to £500 and disallowed half the fee for the hearing to £1,000. He disallowed £5,000 of the solicitors’ fees.

Ms Forey and Haringey Law Centre have been contacted for comment.

Mark Smulian