khan rocky

Khan on the steps of the RCJ (artist's impression).

A junior solicitor has beaten off an attempt by his client's ex-husband to get him thrown in prison for contempt of court.

Yasar Khan, who qualified in 2020, was acting for a mother in litigation around the breakdown of her marriage when he found himself in the father's crosshairs.

Mohamed Ahmed claimed that Khan was in contempt of court because he failed to comply with an order to disclose where the mother and her three children were living. 

"I would like to ask the court to exercise its powers and apply the maximum punishment on this dishonest solicitor of imprisonment and to order him to bear all costs occurred/involved in the making of the court order he disobeyed and breached", Ahmed demanded. 

Mr Justyn Mostyn noted, not necessarily admiringly, that Ahmed made his request “in bold script” to have the "maximum possible penalty meted out".

Ahmed also alleged that Khan tipped off the mother to the existence of the confidential order. The father said he received "a horrific lengthy text message” from his ex-wife's brother, “within which he threatened my life and promised to kill me" and stated that Khan had told the mother about the disclosure order.

He claimed that Khan, "hit the court order into the wall showing his extreme undermining and degrading of the court's decisions and prohibitions".

On the day of the hearing Ahmed had to represent himself when his counsel told the court that she "would be professionally embarrassed" if she continued to represent him, and withdrew.

The judge found that Khan wrongly thought the disclosure order applied to him personally, and that he did not comply with it because he incorrectly believed he didn't have to.

However, Ahmed's allegations were ruled to be "false, banal, or baseless". His "exceptionally serious allegation" that Khan tipped off the mother was supported solely by the text message, which Ahmed retracted, leaving the claim "entirely unsupported by any evidence".

During the hearing Ahmed "noticed the direction the judicial wind was blowing" and said he did not care if Khan went to prison, stating that his objective was to stop Khan from representing the mother. "This put beyond doubt that the father's objectives when making the contempt application were illegitimate and ulterior", said the judge, who struck out the contempt application as "totally without merit".

He revealed it was the second time that Ahmed had sought permission to bring committal proceedings against Khan for allegedly making false statements, and the second time his request had been rejected.

Although Khan escaped with only minor criticism, the judge had more serious questions about his firm's conduct. It "remains a disturbing fact that the partners of Russell and Russell LLP did not comply" with the disclosure order, he said, adding that it was "extremely disquieting that a firm of solicitors, officers of the court, failed to comply with a clear and unambiguous order of the High Court".

Russell and Russell told RollOnFriday, "Given the ongoing complex litigation involving the claimant and a client of this firm, we do not consider it appropriate to comment further on the detailed and clear judgment".

Tip Off ROF


Prophet share 15 July 22 09:11

I would love to have a dad like Mr Ahmed. Sounds like a loving, caring kinda guy.

Law is an ass 15 July 22 10:21

What a waste of time. If the court service were properly funded and updated to allow for cross referencing then the Father would never have been able to make the application for disclosure of the address as the C8 would have been flagged. These sorts of attempts to cheat the system are way too common and it's depressing to see that the judge doesn't acknowledge any failings of the system.

Fair play to Mr Khan. I'm unsure as to what the judge thinks he should have done, as there was no way that the address should have been served on F in the circumstances. Silent on that element of course and then the judgment goes on to disclose the town that the Mother is living in. 

Priti Patel 15 July 22 12:05

What a waste of Courts resources and time. Surely an adverse costs order should have been made against Mr Ahmed considering this was his second attempt at removing Mr Khan, even his own Counsel refused to represent him. 

Anonymous 15 July 22 15:03

@12.05 - adverse costs order against the judge maybe for not striking it out on the papers.

Related News