A disgraced former solicitor who abandoned his clients with no reasonable explanation has been ordered to repay £92,000 and hit with indemnity costs, after a judge found he seriously abused the court’s process.
Darren Hanison was on record to represent six women who brought vaginal mesh claims against the NHS, as part of a larger cohort of 305 claimants linked to the proceedings.
Hanison failed to lodge the papers ahead of a hearing in 2022 which caused it to be relisted. Hanison’s firm, Fortitude Law, was shut down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2023 over his suspected dishonesty. In February this year he was struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after facing 17 allegations including dishonesty, misleading clients, poor service and serious regulatory breaches.
At a hearing to deal with costs issues relating to the mesh claims, the defendants in the six linked claims requested that Hanison repay £92,000 in various payments made on account. They also asked that the former solicitor should pay the costs of the aborted hearing in 2022, as well as costs associated with the detailed assessment proceedings for the six claims.
In HD & Ors v North Devon Healthcare Trust & Ors, Costs Judge Joseph found that Hanison was in breach of the retainers signed with his clients and had, in short, ‘abandoned’ them. The judge further concluded that the retainers between each of the claimants in the six linked claims were unenforceable.
‘It is difficult to reach any other conclusion than that the retainer has been terminated by Mr Hanison without any good reason on his part to justify him so doing,’ said Joseph. ‘There is no evidence of any conduct on the part of any of the claimants in the six linked claims which might have justified Mr Hanison terminating the retainers.’
The costs judge added: ‘There can be no doubt that a solicitor on the record has the responsibility for lodging [necessary] documents and for complying with the requisite practice direction… Mr Hanison was seriously in breach of his duties to the court. That conduct was unreasonable and there is no reasonable explanation for it.’
Joseph said Hanison’s unreasonable behaviour had started at the onset of the detailed assessment proceedings and there had been a serious abuse of the court’s process. He ordered that £92,000 be repaid and that Hanison should further pay the costs on the indemnity basis of the aborted 2022 hearing, the detailed assessment proceedings and the costs of the latest applications.
The costs judge expressed gratitude that the defendants had provided undertakings after he raised concerns that the claimants might otherwise face personal liability for costs.
