A judge has taken the unusual step of publishing a written judgment criticising the conduct of a firm of solicitors following an adjourned first appointment in a financial remedies hearing.
Deputy District Judge Hales, sitting remotely at the Royal Courts of Justice, said what he heard during a hearing to investigate issues resulting in a wasted costs order had given him “such cause for concern” he considered it appropriate to publish the written judgment about Ash Solicitors, whose conduct he said displayed “ignorance of the rules” and “utter incompetence”.
The firm had claimed to have instructions to represent Jean-Paul Pool in the case, which it later admitted it did not. The firm also claimed Mr Pool lacked capacity due to “mental health”, a statement for which DDJ Hales said “they had no evidence whatsoever”.
Financial remedies had been sought by Sabrina Pool, who was present at the hearing and represented by her counsel, Natalya Evans. Mr Pool was not present and not represented.
The application concerned the transfer of a tenancy into Mrs Pool’s sole name after she had petitioned for divorce in 2024. In March 2025, Mr Pool instructed Ash Solicitors to prepare a consent order to reflect what he believed had been agreed.
In October 2025, Mrs Pool requested financial disclosure before agreeing to a dismissal of claims and instructed MacKenzie & Co, who subsequently issued proceedings.
In November 2025, following correspondence between the two firms, Ash Solicitors indicated they were without instructions from the husband other than he had “said to them that he was sick”.
The financial remedies application was listed for FDA in February 2026, with no form E or any other documentation provided by Mr Pool.
Ash Solicitors went “on record” as acting for Mr Pool, filing and serving a document headed: “Respondent Husband’s Position Statement for the FDA”, which purported to have been prepared on behalf of “the Respondent Husband” and stating it was “common knowledge that H suffers from mental health and was hospitalised”.
Ash Solicitors did not attend the hearing or contact the court to explain their absence, leading the deputy district judge to adjourn the hearing, order a medical report as to the husband’s capacity, and direct a member of the firm to file a statement explaining its conduct.
In the subsequent statement, the firm’s representative explained the firm had been contacted by a hospital social worker with information about the husband’s housing situation, and clarifying it was not the husband who “suffers from mental health” but his father.
In relation to the decision to go on record, file the position statement and not attend the FDA, the statement continued: “In those circumstances we did not have instruction to attend the hearing to represent the respondent. We intended no disrespect to the Court by our non-attendance. Our failure to attend was not deliberate. Rather, we were without instructions and unable to obtain proper confirmation of the Respondent’s position.
“Nevertheless we considered it appropriate to provide a statement to explain to the Court as far as we were able to, as it was known to us at that time. therefore, we added our name to the Court portal to upload the statement”.
The author of the statement subsequently appeared at the rearranged hearing before DDJ Hales, where he discovered they were a solicitor apprentice and not an admitted solicitor. Following a brief adjournment, the person with supervisory responsibility for family work at Ash Solicitors attended the hearing and explained the firm had no instructions from the husband to go on record in February 2026 and had not heard from him since mid-2025.
The firm also had no evidence on which to base the statement the husband lacked the ability to engage in the proceedings, which had resulted from “an assumption” made by the firm that a social worker they had spoken to at the hospital was connected to the mental health team. The firm had forwarded the remote link to the hearing to the same social worker with an invitation to attend, without notifying the court or the wife’s solicitor.
“It is an understatement to say that I find this conduct utterly extraordinary”, DDJ Hales wrote.
He added: “Sadly, the story does not end there. I have already alluded to the failure on the part of the Wife’s solicitors to file and serve an N260, a failure for which there was no explanation and which led to the withdrawal of the application for a Wasted Costs order. That failure is likely to lead to a direct cost to Mrs Pool, and I would hope that her solicitors will take the necessary steps to ensure the relevant cost burden is undertaken by them rather than by her.”
The judge concluded: “It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to publish a judgment including such criticism of members of the legal profession. I would hope that this judgment leads to those involved reflecting upon their conduct, seeking further training or guidance, and ensuring that their clients receive a significantly improved level of service in the future.
“Parties to family proceedings, many of whom are spending money they can ill afford, deserve no less from the legal professionals involved. The competent conduct of legal proceedings is not negotiable.”
