Hosein v Ramnarine-Hill
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lady Arden |
| Judgment Date | 25 October 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] UKPC 28 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 0061 of 2019 |
[2021] UKPC 28
From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Michaelmas Term
Lord Lloyd-Jones
Lord Briggs
Lady Arden
Lord Sales
Lord Stephens
Privy Council Appeal No 0061 of 2019
Appellant
Robert Strang
(Instructed by BDB Pitmans LLP (London))
Respondent
(Not participating in the appeal)
This appeal concerns the issue whether the report of a professional disciplinary committee into the conduct of the appellant, Mr Shaheed Hosein, an attorney-at-law with an office in Port of Spain, was procedurally irregular and should be set aside.
Allegations of forgery were made against Mr Hosein in the circumstances described in the next section of this judgment. The allegations therefore were of very serious professional misconduct. A Disciplinary Committee, First Division was appointed pursuant to section 37(1) of the Legal Profession Act (“The Act”), Ch 90:03 of Trinidad and Tobago (“the Disciplinary Committee”). Its members were Deborah Peake SC (Vice Chair), Bijili Lalla and Nadia Kangaloo. In its Report dated 5 March 2013 the Disciplinary Committee found the allegations of forgery proved against Mr Hosein and in consequence a series of related breaches of the statutory rules applying to attorneys. The Disciplinary Committee remitted the case to the Chief Justice and the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago as it considered that the case justified suspension from practice or removal from the Roll of Attorneys-at-Law, which were beyond its powers.
In 2009, Mr Nigel Ali, the husband of Mrs Nazreen Ali was tragically killed in a road accident involving another vehicle. Mrs Ali instructed Mr Hosein to pursue a claim on her behalf and that of their infant child for damages from the driver and his insurer. By a private arrangement not before the Board, she had agreed to pay a Mr Lord some 20% of the damages and Mr Lord had introduced her to Mr Hosein. Mr Hosein accepted Mrs Ali's instructions.
Mr Hosein contacted the driver's insurer, Guardian General Insurance Co Ltd (“the insurer”). The insurer made an offer of (TT) $460,748.08 by letter dated 3 December 2010 to Mr Hosein (“the insurer's first offer letter”). The offer was supported by full calculations and used a multiplier of 16 years. On 6 January 2011 Mr Hosein wrote to the insurer stating that the offer should have been $657,400. By a further letter dated 24 January 2011 to Mr Hosein (“the insurer's second offer letter”) the insurer increased its offer to $529,900. On 31 January 2011, the insurer in fact wrote to Mr Hosein confirming settlement of the claim in the amount of $535,000 and an agreed further amount for Mr Hosein's costs.
Mr Hosein then took Mrs Ali's instructions. The case against Mr Hosein is that when he did so he misrepresented the offers and said they were lower than they actually were. On 28 January 2011, Mr Hosein had a meeting with Mrs Ali at which, according to Mrs Ali, Mr Hosein explained that the insurer had made significantly lower offers of $406,598.32 and $439,275 respectively and asked her to sign a letter dated 28 January 2011 approving the settlement in the sum of $439,275. Mrs Ali did not sign that letter, which she took away from the meeting. Mrs Ali and her sister-in-law had a further meeting with Mr Hosein on 3 February 2011, at which, according to Mrs Ali, she asked for copies of the insurer's first and second offer letters with the insurer's official stamp, which Mr Hosein provided. The incorrect versions of the letters used a lower multiplier of 14 years and showed offers in the sums of $406,598.32 and $439,275 respectively. Mrs Ali contacted the insurer herself and she then discovered that the offers were understated. She discharged Mr Hosein and came to a settlement with the insurer on the basis of the correct information as to the insurer's offers.
An officer of the insurer, Uthra Ramnarine-Hill (to whom the Board refers as Mrs Ramnarine-Hill) made a complaint of professional misconduct against Mr Hosein. This came before the Disciplinary Committee already mentioned. There were five charges of professional misconduct against Mr Hosein. In summary, the complaints made were that he had forged, or procured someone else to forge, the insurer's first and second offer letters and presented the forged documents to Mrs Ali as if they were genuine.
Mrs Ali gave evidence about the incorrect versions of the letters dated 3 December 2010, and 24 and 28 January 2011, described above. She therefore confirmed that Mr Hosein had given her the letters showing that insurer had offered first $406,598.32 and then $439,275.
Mr Hosein sought to cross-examine Mrs Ali on the basis of another version of the letter dated 28 January 2011 (“the excluded letter”). Significantly this showed the correct amount of the insurer's second offer. His case was that that was the letter of 28 January 2011 which he had given to Mrs Ali at a meeting on 3 February 2011 and therefore the letters containing the incorrect amounts must been made by her or her sister-in-law, Ms Ria Solomon. The excluded letter was on Mr Hosein's professional headed note paper, dated 28 January 2011, addressed to Mrs Ali and signed by Mr Hosein. It states:
“We refer to the above, and your recent instructions and discussions with our Mr Hosein. We set out hereunder details of the terms of settlement of this matter, as well as details of the disbursement of funds for your confirmation and approval.
Settlement of claim … $535,000.00.”
The Disciplinary Committee did not allow Mrs Ali to be cross-examined on the excluded letter or to admit it in evidence in the proceedings because Mr Hosein had not complied with the Disciplinary Committee's directions on disclosure of documents (see para 17 below).
The Disciplinary Committee found that Mrs Ali was not shaken in cross-examination. She explained that she had thought about going to the police but did not do so because she was afraid. However, she agreed to give evidence in support of the professional complaint against Mr Hosein because she had trusted Mr Hosein to act on her behalf and he had tried to rob her and her son of what was due to them.
Mrs Ramnarine-Hill gave evidence. The Disciplinary Committee found that the officer gave evidence in a straightforward and forthright manner. She explained the history of her dealings with Mr Hosein and identified the letters which she had written. In cross-examination it was suggested to her that the letters produced by Mrs Ali could have been created by Mrs Ali. The Disciplinary Committee accepted her response, which was that she could not think what benefit Mrs Ali would derive from so doing.
Mr Hosein's case was that he did not give Mrs Ali versions of the insurer's first and second offers showing the sums of $406,598.32 and $439,275 or the incorrect version of the letter of 28 January 2011. His case was that he gave her the excluded letter, giving the correct higher figure and correct versions of the insurer's offer letters. He denied either receiving from the insurer or creating the false copies. His evidence was that they had been created by Mrs Ali and her sister-in-law, Ms Solomon, to avoid paying Mr Lord his 20% of the damages and to get her hands on her son's money.
The Disciplinary Committee concluded, having heard the witnesses and read the documentary evidence, that Mr Hosein's case should be rejected, and the evidence led by the complainant accepted.
The Disciplinary Committee found that Mr Hosein did deliver to his client Mrs Ali the false letters. It was also satisfied that Mr Hosein prepared or caused to be prepared the false letters. In so doing, the Disciplinary Committee further found that Mr Hosein had deliberately and with intent to deceive misrepresented to Mrs Ali that a settlement offer had been made by letters dated 3 December 2010 and 24 January 2011 in the sums of $406,598.32 instead of $460,748.08, and $439,275 instead of $529,900. The Disciplinary Committee was satisfied that the false letters were forged with Mr Hosein's consent or concurrence with intent to deceive Mrs Ali.
In the light of those findings, the Disciplinary Committee found that Mr Hosein had derogated from the high standards of conduct expected of him and as an attorney-at-law breached rules 1, 12 and 21 of Part A of the Third Schedule to the Act, and that he had committed acts of professional misconduct in breach of rule 29 of Part B of the Third Schedule to the Act. Those Rules provide:
“Rule 1: ‘An Attorney-at-law shall observe the rules of this Code, maintain his integrity and the honour and dignity of the legal profession […].’
Rule 12: ‘…he can only maintain the high traditions of his profession by being a person of high integrity and dignity.’
Rule 21: ‘(1) An Attorney-at-law shall always act in the best interests of his client, represent him honestly […]. (2) The interests of his client and the exigencies of the administration of justice should always be the first concern of an Attorney-at-law and rank before his right to compensation for his services.’
Rule 29: ‘An Attorney-at-law shall not knowingly make a false statement of law or fact.’”
The Disciplinary Committee was of the opinion that the complainant had made out a case justifying more severe sanction than could be imposed by it. The Disciplinary Committee was of the view that either suspension from practice or removal from the Roll was warranted. The committee therefore forwarded the case to the Chief Justice and Attorney General. However, the Board was informed that Mr Hosein has continued in practice without interruption.
To continue reading
Request your trial