Judge slammed a solicitors' firm for not doing their duty and highlighting the concern early on
The UK High Court tossed out claims after realizing that a client giving evidence in the court couldn’t communicate in English, reported the Law Society Gazette.
During a cross-examination in Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia, Justice Martin Spencer said that while Joginder Singh had presented a witness statement written in English and verified its accuracy, he could only communicate in Punjabi.
Joginder Singh and Tarsem Singh had filed claims against Rajinder Kalia, who founded and was priest of a Coventry temple dedicated to the worship of Hindu deity Baba Balak Nath. According to the Gazette, the Singhs sought restitution and/or equitable compensation for financial outlay and in respect of loan agreements entered into with Kalia’s business, BJ finance; they also sought equitable compensation for travel costs to India and for unpaid work.
Kalia refuted the claims, stating that the unpaid work was conducted by way of seva, which was volunteer work aligned with the Singhs’ devotional duty to Baba Balak Nath.
The Singhs engaged the solicitors at Peacock & Co as legal representation; on July 4, Joginder gave evidence in court and subsequently underwent cross-examination by Kalia’s lawyer, Sarah Crowther KC. As the cross-examination went on, Spencer said that the language barrier became evident, and Singh told an interpreter that he could neither read nor write.
The same was true for Tarsem Singh, and Spencer voiced his suspicion that the Singhs had engaged with Peacock & Co via their daughter.
“If that is the case it seems to me at first blush that the solicitors have not done their duty appropriately in this case in that they have not engaged directly with the claimants, they have not established that which ought to have been established well in advance of this trial in relation to their ability to read and speak English, and this should have been raised at the pre-trial review so that appropriate steps could be taken,” the judge said in a statement published by the Gazette.
Spencer added that the language barrier only coming to light in court in the process of cross-examination was “wholly unacceptable” and “amounts to a virtual contempt of the proceedings of this court.”
“In those circumstances, it would be quite wrong for me to exercise my discretion to give the claimants any sort of indulgence, given also the wasted costs which that would entail,” he said.
