A baffling judgment

Jayne Willetts commented on what she described as a baffling judgment in HD & Ors v North Devon Healthcare Trust & Ors [2026] EWHC 2009 (SCCO) when Costs Judge Joseph found that a solicitor (Darren Hanison) had “abandoned” his clients “without good reason” and ordered him to pay £92,000 and indemnity costs for failing to represent six clients in court proceedings. The SRA had intervened in Mr Hanison’s practice so his practising certificate would have been suspended at the date of the intervention so to undertake any work for these clients would have meant that he was committing a criminal offence. The judgment failed to recognise that Mr Hanison had no alternative but to cease acting. Surely an intervention and the lack of a practising certificate constitue good reason for being unable to fulfil a solicitor-client retainer.