Background
Amar Lodhia brought defamation and malicious-falsehood claims arising from a newsletter circulated to leaseholders at the Maltings residential estate in East London. The newsletter criticised his litigation and other activities concerning the estate. After narrowing his case and making several applications to postpone or stay proceedings, Lodhia discontinued the claim.
In an earlier judgment, the High Court ordered Lodhia to pay the defendants’ costs and make interim payments. This further hearing addressed whether those costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis, who should bear the costs of the earlier costs hearing, whether Lodhia’s applications were totally without merit, whether a civil restraint order was warranted, and whether evidence concerning Lodhia and barrister Joseph Chiffers should be referred to public or professional authorities.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Linden ordered Lodhia to pay the costs of the 6 May 2026 hearing and directed that the defendants’ costs of the proceedings be assessed on the indemnity basis because of Lodhia’s unreasonable conduct. The court refused the second defendant’s application to set off an £840 costs liability owed to Lodhia in separate proceedings against Lodhia’s £3,600 interim costs liability in this case.
Applying the civil standard of proof, the court found that Lodhia had relied on fabricated or doctored documents, given false evidence in witness statements, doctored a court order, filed false certificates of service, misrepresented his trustees in bankruptcy’s position, and made an untrue costs claim of approximately £82,800. It certified eight applications or arguments as totally without merit and imposed a General Civil Restraint Order for three years.
The court also directed that Chiffers and Joseph Chiffers Barrister at Law Limited be referred to the Bar Standards Board. It referred the case to the Attorney General’s Office to consider whether contempt proceedings should be brought against Lodhia and whether the matter should be referred to the police; it did not itself determine criminal liability for contempt.
Key Takeaways
- Fabricated evidence, false statements verified by statements of truth, and dishonest costs claims can justify indemnity costs.
- Repeated applications certified as totally without merit supported a three-year General Civil Restraint Order restricting further litigation by Lodhia.
- The court distinguished its civil findings from contempt liability, referring possible contempt proceedings to the Attorney General because contempt must be proved to the criminal standard.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the High Court’s broad procedural response to serious litigation misconduct: enhanced costs, restraint of repetitive meritless applications, professional-regulatory referral, and referral for possible contempt or criminal investigation.
It also underscores that discontinuance does not insulate a claimant from close scrutiny of evidence and conduct when consequential costs and case-management issues remain unresolved.