Pool v Pool [2026] EWFC 226 (B)

Judgment date: 3 August 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/226

DDJ Hales. Competent conduct of legal professionals is not negotiable.

Overview

W had originally sought a wasted costs order against H’s solicitors, which was later withdrawn. The court was so concerned about the conduct of the parties’ solicitors that it published this judgment.

Background

The parties were married from 1998 to 2018. W’s financial remedy application was essentially for the transfer of a tenancy into her sole name.

In March 2025, the parties appeared to have agreed that the tenancy would be transferred to W. H instructed solicitors to prepare a consent order. W subsequently sought financial disclosure before agreeing to dismiss her claims; she later instructed her own solicitors who issued proceedings in October 2025.

By November 2025, H’s solicitors said they were without instructions from H, who had reportedly said that he was unwell. H subsequently stopped engaging with the proceedings and was rumoured to have relocated to the Seychelles.

Shortly before the FDA in February 2026 H’s solicitors went on the record for H and filed a Position Statement stating that H had mental health difficulties and was not in a fit state to participate in the proceedings. H’s solicitors did not attend the hearing or contact the court to explain their absence. The court therefore ordered that a medical report concerning H’s capacity be obtained; that H’s solicitors provide a statement explaining their conduct and directed that wasted costs would be considered at the adjourned FDA.

H’s solicitors subsequently accepted that they had not had instructions from H since mid-2025 and the only evidence they had of his mental ill health was a call from a social worker regarding the husband’s housing. It later transpired that it was in fact the husband’s father who suffered from mental health issues. The court considered that it was clear from the correspondence from the social worker that the emails were from a team who had nothing to do with mental health issues.

W’s solicitors originally sought a wasted costs order but later conceded that application on the basis that there was no Form N260. The court still sought to have the parties in court to explain what had occurred. During this inquiry, it came to light that H’s solicitors had also sent the FDA hearing link to the social worker without the court’s permission or notifying the court or W’s legal team.

Held

The judge considered the conduct of H’s solicitors to be ‘utterly extraordinary’, concluding that they had effectively misled the court into believing that:

• they had instructions to represent H; and
• H lacked capacity to participate in the proceedings despite having no evidence of the same.

The judge was also critical of W’s legal team due to (a) their failure to file an N260 and (b) their disclosure of the entirety of the Family Law Act proceedings without permission.

The judge concluded that ‘none of the legal professionals in this case has covered themselves with glory’ and ‘the competent conduct of legal proceedings is not negotiable’.