The principal has been exclusively involved in the following cases:
Ali v Al-Basri & another [2004] EWHC 2608 (QB);[2004] All ER
(D) 290 (Nov)

Stack v Dowden [2005] EWCA Civ 857 Court of Appeal, Civil

RE:C(A Child) [2006] EWCA Civ 1115 Court of Appeal, Civil

Stack v Dowden(House of Lords) [2007] UKHL 17 ;[2007] 2 AC
432; [2007] 2 WLR 831;[2007] 2 All ER 92

MAP v RAP [2013]EWHC 4784 (Fam)

Charles Haynes (deceased) v Raymond Andre & another
Chancery Division, March 09, 2018, [2018] EWHC 489 

Lone v Solicitors Regulation Authority & Others
currently in-Employment Tribunal Midlands West

*Mr.Lone is a FIFA players' football agent(2009)

Latest News

Proceedings in the ETA are now to proceed to a review hearing. A further update will follow.

The pleadings in the ET proceedings identifying the individual that precipitated those proceedings will be published shortly. The identity of this individual is shown in the Scott schedule.


At a hearing on 3rd April 2023, the SRA were asked to produce a copy of an alleged assignment that they relied upon. When produced, the lion share of the document had beern redacted. In answer to the Court's question as to the whereabouts of the original, the SRA were unable to provide a valid explanation. Accordingly, the Court failed in its duty to apply the contra perferentum rule in resolving the ambuity against the party that created it. As with the case of the destruction of the tape below, the Law Society has been asked to provide an explanation within 14 days otherwise further steps will be taken against the SRA & Law Society.



The SRA has destroyed evidence subject of an application for its disclosure, prior to a key hearing for the Principal.

The matter has been reported to the Law Society as Forensic Investigators, Sarah Taylor and Jonathan Chambers, when challenged on the authenticity of a tape recording and disclosure of it, have destroyed it according to the SRA who have openly admitted to this both in correspondence and in Court. It calls into question the veracity and integrity of the whole investigation as nothing more than an absolute 'sham', which allegations were made from the outset by the Principal.

The conduct of the SRA above was initially 
reported in the Law Society Gazette on 02.03.20 which allegations have both resurfaced and shown to be justified/upheld. Accordingly, it has been referred back to the Law Society for it to explain the SRA's conduct.

At a hearing on 6th October 2022 in the High Court Administrative section, the Principal, Naim Lone, voiced his anger and sheer disgust to the Court of the conduct of the SRA in destroying key pieces of evidence to avoid disclosure.This 
followed numerous requests for production of the original tape recording because of serious concerns about its genuineness. Ultimately, their repeated failures to disclose the original tape recording precipitated the application before the Court for specific disclosure.

Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of this sordid matter is the lack of any concern whatsoever shown by the SRA to what the Principal perceives as a serious act of misconduct by the very institution that is entrusted to prevent it.

The Solicitors acting for the SRA, Capsticks LLP, have also been reported to the Law Society at the same time on the grounds that they were aware of such misconduct, given that they were initially forced to admit it it to the Principal in August 2022, but only after an application was made to the Court in late June. The Principal presumes the destruction of the tape was only admitted prior to the hearing for specific disclosure to avoid having to explain the reasons in open Court, and the accompanying risks associated with such steps.

A complaint against the Solicitors to the SRA has been resisted because of the fear that they would deal with this issue in the same manner as the notorious complaint regarding one of it's employees. That was to write to Capsticks and 'advise them about its obligations' despite the same firm representing them in regulatory matters who would normally be advising the SRA. In short, the SRA are hardly in a position to take action against the Solicitors given they were involved in the same misconduct.

The above report now conflicts Capsticks from acting any further for the SRA as they are considered joint tortfeasors.

It is now a matter for the Law Society to investigate the Forensic investigators to understand and reply to the question raised by the Principal. That is why they have destroyed a key piece of evidence with knowledge that the whole purpose of applying for specific disclosure was for the transcript of the original tape recording to be adduced at a final hearing in November 2022. It has also seriously prejudiced the writer's appeal.

This key development is now the forefront of an application to strike out an earlier order and seriously call into question the integrity of the individuals involved, as well as the ensuing investigation, unless they are able to provide a valid reason for discarding material evidence within the currency of existing proceedings. The SRA's failure to address the point makes it unlikely that any plausible explanation will be given.

Whilst the Law Society reviews the position previously ignored by them, it ought to have heeded to warnings by the principal that they are vicariously liable for the actions of the SRA.

The principal is conisdering his options regarding legal proceedings against the Law Society. In the interim, the issue of the tape is now the main focus of the forthcoming hearing, as a preliminary point to strike out the order prior to the hearing of the substantive application (if that is now deemed necessary in light of the above).

Whilst the Appeal Court will now have to infer the reasons why key pieces of evidence has been destroyed amid existing proceedings, and with knowledge of them, the Principal remains confident that a competent Court will no doubt be able to deduce the reason(s) for the destruction of evidence and make its ruling accordingly.

At the same time as the above referral, the Law Society has also been asked to explain why the EAT has ignored approximately 50 requests to list the application, against the SRA, in which the latter is subject of an application to revive an order that initially listed a hearing for a 17 day trial, at which board members of the SRA are required to give evidence of disgusting levels of discrimination should it be overturned. Numerous requests which are likely to set a precedent for other Claimants should the EAT grant the Principal's application, have been ignored since March 2022. The SRA are the only beneficiaries of this delay as they are the only Respondents to the application.

A copy of the Scott Schedule which encompasses every incident of discrimination, victimisation and harassment will now be available for review on this webpage:  shortly.

The Principal makes it clear that he is unable to make any concrete findings until after the Forensic investigators have exaplined their reasons for their conduct. At this point, the factual developments thus far are reported.

Any comments should be directed to the Principal, Naim Lone, at naim@attiyahlone. Such comments would be dealt with in the strictest of confidence.

NL 10.10.22

ELITE INTERNATIONAL AGENTS will shortly be introducing representation for Women professional players to complement the existing facility for professional male footballers.

Any female professional player that is looking for professional representation should contact the agent, Mr.Lone, on 07894 244171. Alternatively, please make an appointment for a no obligation meeting at our offices in Wimbledon Village, or other mutually convenient venue, to discuss what the agent can offer.

As Elite International is a non disriminatory agency, we cater for both male and female footballer players, as well as other sporting contracts on the same terms regardless of gender.

Please feel free to contact the agent on the above number for a no obligation discussion.
© Copyright Naim Lone 2019Web Design By Toolkit Websites