Anbananden Sooben v Eshan Badal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Nicklin,The Honourable |
| Judgment Date | 31 October 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 2638 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ14D04568 |
| Date | 31 October 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 2638 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Nicklin
Case No: HQ14D04568
Lee Schama (instructed by MDL Solicitors) for the Claimant
Philip Williams and Harriet Cotter (instructed by Lambeth Solicitors) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 18–19 October 2017
Judgment Approved
This judgment follows the trial of a libel action over an article that was published in the November 2013 edition of Mauritius Now. The evidence is that Mauritius Now is published only in print, but it has not been published at all since sometime in early 2016. In November 2013, it had a circulation of some 1,000 in England & Wales, which produced a readership of between 3,000–4,000. As the title of the newspaper suggests, it covers material which is likely to be read by those who are interested in Mauritian news, particularly those in the UK who are of Mauritian origin. At the relevant time, the Defendant, Eshan Badal, was the editor of Mauritius Now. I was told the owner was an individual called Tariq Rawat ("Mr Rawat").
The Claimant is Anbananden Sooben. He is a solicitor admitted in England & Wales. Although a Mauritian by birth, he came to live in the United Kingdom in 1964. He is now 75. In terms of family, the Claimant is married with two grown-up children and three grand-children. He has not always been a solicitor. He was a civil servant in the UK working for the Department of Trade & Industry and other departments. When he retired, in 1994, after 23 years' service, he had attained the grade of Higher Executive Officer and was cleared to have access to classified information. Following retirement, he studied law and completed his legal training in 2006.
The article that has given rise to these proceedings appeared on page 28 of Mauritius Now for November 2013 in a section of the newspaper headed "Law". The article occupied the whole of the page and was an interview with Ramkarun Bushan Deepchand ("Mr Deepchand") ("the Article"). I have added paragraph numbers for ease of reference. The punctuation errors are in the original text.
Bushan Deepchand of Lambeth Solicitors
Interview
[1] Conflicting reports surrounding the case of Mr Ramakrun Bhusan Deepchand of Lambeth Solicitors based in London has been the highlight of this month.
[2] Mr Ramakrun Bushan Deepchand was given a Conditional Discharge for 12 months on 21 st October 2013 on 3 counts at Southwark Court, London for illegally providing immigration advice and services. The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC), which regulates the giving of immigration advice in the UK, had prosecuted Deepchand for having submitted appeals and appeared before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal when he was not authorised to do so.
[3] During an exclusive interview with Mauritius now Mr Deepchand vehemently denied most of the allegations as nonsense and said: 'Yes, they relate to 4 cases, which includes 1 Mauritian, where I represented these people at the Immigration and Asylum Court and the appeals were successfully allowed by the Immigration Judge and there were no complaint (sic) by the clients.' He then went on to say: 'Subsequently there were two additional charges which were brought and one of them failed for perjury. Strangely, the jury did not believe the lade who gave evidence; she was inconsistent and had retracted from her stories a few times which had obviously led the Jury to believe that she was lying.'
[4] Mr Deepchand defending his robe (sic) [sc. role] said there were no direct or indirect complaints by the client whom he represented. In fact it was a complaint made by another Solicitor practicing (sic) for ICS Solicitors at that time who was also a previous partner in the Ben Cameron Solicitors, a firm where he worked for between 2008 and 2009. Following the breaking of their partnership one of the solicitors had sued the other partner over for (sic) his lost investment, a judgment was given in his favour in November 2009 at the Wandsworth County Court. At that time Mr Deepchand was personally approached by the jubilant solicitor to be his witness at Court to testify with the aim to boost up his claim. He was not willing to lie and perjure himself in Court so he said he did not partake in this devious act. He was subsequently harassed by the jubilant solicitor for having disappointed him which had prompted Mr Deepchand to report the matter to the Police for which an injunction was granted by the District Judge at Ilford County Court. Mr Deepchand said: 'Later on I used some documents in the harassment case which Mr Sooben has used to complain to the OISC. This, what he believed to have led to the Southwark Crown Court case.
[5] He said the Solicitor in question was not a witness in his case heard at the Southwark Crown court on 21 st October 2013 but was indirectly involved. Mr Deepchand stated: 'Well he was the person who had instigated all this. I was awarded cost (sic) against him which I still have not claimed from him yet. I have seen all the evidence which demonstrates that he has been supplying information to the OISC and strangely enough, even whilst the hearing was in process he kept on sending additional documents relating to some of his archived cases against which I was assigned by his firm to deal with in 2009. I think the injunction was too much for him and had a very deep impact on him which he could not get over. He has been very spiteful.'
[6] In defence to whether Mr Deepchand was qualified to provide immigration advice and services for the cases that he was taken to the court (sic) he said: 'It is a very narrow and technical issue. The reason they said I was not qualified to do these cases was because the firm I was working for at the time, Benn Cameron Solicitors, was not covered under the Professional Indemnity Insurance during the relevant period. However, I was just a simple employee and it was not within my remit to arrange for or maintain the Professional Indemnity Insurance. The senior partner and my supervisor were the people responsible for the Insurance in his case: 'It is very simple, if a firm does not have the Professional Indemnity Insurance for whatever reason, the working (sic) for that firm may be illegal. This is what happened in my case. Had there been a Professional Indemnity Insurance in place there would not have been any issue. I was not aware of the fact that Benn Cameron Solicitors did not have Professional Indemnity Insurance. It had not even crossed my mind. Everything appeared to be bona fide. The firm was operating in a normal way. A continuous campaign to recruitment (sic) young qualified solicitors to join them in October/November 2009 was in progress. He was taking on new cases and representing people in Court. I only found out in March 2010 when he had written to the Solicitors Regulation Authority informing them that Benn Cameron had ceased its operational practice since September 2009. Currently there is a separate investigation against him which is being conducted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and some of the cases for which I was prosecuted for (sic) were also dealt with by him. I am not sure how far the investigation has progressed but all I can say that he no longer appear (sic) as a Solicitor on the Law Society website so I would assume that he is not practising anymore for whatever the reasons. I must say that I was not the only Mauritian working there were four more and they have not yet been prosecuted.'
[7] When Mr Deepchand was asked how he felt about being found guilty on three charges out of six he replied with a smile: 'Well, to start with the Prosecution had lost their main cases. Two of the cases for which I have been acquitted are similar to the ones which I have been found guilty. Without doubt I can say there is some kind of inconsistency in the verdict. There are various issues relating to evidence and fairness because Benn Cameron closed down some 4 years ago and I do not have access to any of my files and documents to support my case. I must emphasise even the judge said I am not guilty because I have been acquitted for similar charges and he found the jury's verdict strange which I feel to be a plus point in my favour'.
[8] When it was put to him that he has been given a conditional discharge for 12 months and how he felt about this he replied: 'It is not very pleasant when the media seems to have dragged me as a criminal. I am appealing against the verdict to the Court of Appeal. I thought I was going to get a fine but I am grateful to the judge for the Conditional Discharge which is a very minor and very low sentence. This has not affected my day to day work; practice; family and social life. My office is open as usual. I do not have anything which prevents me from doing what I am doing. Obviously, this is Lambeth Solicitors and there is no problem at all with this firm. The media has portrayed a very distorting picture of mine; negative publicity; without having regards (sic) to my professional qualities as though a planned vendetta against me to further tarnish my position in the Mauritian community. Sadly, I have already started proceedings against the OISC for damages and I will start civil proceedings for damages against some private Radio stations and newspapers in Mauritius over the coming days.'
[9] Mr Deepchand explained about his hearing listed for 6 th December 2013. He said because the OISC has lost their main case they have to pay my legal costs for defending this matter. The Court will decide on that day how much they will have to pay.'
[10] As it had taken more than 18 moths for this case to come to a close Mr Deepchand though relieved will soon be filing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jan Tomasz Serafin v Grzegorz Malkiewicz
...a chance to comment. Further, “no effort was made to give his [the claimant's] side of the story at all” [16]. 74 In Sooben v Badal [2017] EWHC 2638 QB, the defendant gave evidence that he had tried to contact the claimant and strongly believed that even if he had met the claimant he would......
-
Ramkarun Bushan Deepchand v Anbananden Sooben
...defences advanced by Mr Badal and awarded Mr Sooben £70,000 in damages for the reasons given in his judgment dated 31 October 2017 ( [2017] EWHC 2638 (QB)). As the judge explained, the maintenance and ultimate abandonment of the justification defence were significant aggravating factors in......