Sabrina Pool v Jean-Paul Pool [2026] EWFC 226 (B)
[1]This judgment arises from an adjourned First Appointment in Financial Remedies heard by me remotely at the Royal Courts of Justice. The Applicant Wife Sabrina Pool was present and represented by Counsel Natalya Evans. The Respondent Husband Jean-Paul Pool was not present and not represented. Also present for some of the hearing were two representatives of Ash Solicitors, against whom the Wife had planned to make an application for wasted costs.[2]In the end, for reasons I will set out below, the Wasted Costs application was withdrawn. I was also able to deal with the substantive matters arising in respect of the adjourned First Appointment, which essentially involved listing the case for a final hearing as soon as possible due to the Husband’s non engagement. However, what I heard during the course of the hearing in investigating the issues that had caused the spectre of a Wasted Costs order to arise, gave me such cause for concern that I considered it appropriate to deliver and publish a written judgment.[3]The conduct of solicitors who represent parties in family proceedings is of the highest importance. Often, the parties themselves are in a vulnerable position; they are going through perhaps the most difficult period in their lives; it is quite likely that they have never been involved in Court proceedings before, indeed they may never have had cause to speak to a solicitor before. They will have little or no prior knowledge of any of the legal framework surrounding their divorce. There is therefore a significant onus on solicitors and Counsel to ensure that their advice and representation is at least competent, and they should expect to be challenged and identified when it falls short.[4]Importantly, this responsibility is no less onerous when parties are publicly funded. Just because a litigant is not paying for their legal advice and representation does not mean that they are not entitled to the same service and same level of professionalism as those who pay. Solicitors carry a responsibility not only to their clients but also to the public purse that is funding them. Sadly, in this case I have found that the legal profession has fallen very far short of the required standard. Background[5]The proceedings themselves are straightforward: they involve financial remedies being sought by Mrs Pool, her application essentially being for the transfer of a tenancy into her sole name after a marriage that lasted from 1998 to 2018. Mrs Pool petitioned for divorce in 2024, and negotiations then ensued between the parties.[6]In March 2025, it appears that the parties had reached agreement that the tenancy would be transferred to the Wife. The Husband went to see Ash solicitors in West London, and instructed them to prepare a consent order to reflect what he believed had been agreed. That document was sent to the Wife, but as she was entitled to, she evidently took the view – perhaps on advice – that she would want to exchange financial disclosure before agreeing to a dismissal of claims. She in turn instructed MacKenzie & Co, and they issued these proceedings at the beginning of October.[7]There was then some correspondence between solicitors in which Ash Solicitors again indicated that the Husband was prepared to transfer the tenancy. However, by 17 November 2025, they were indicating that they were without instructions from the Husband, save that he had said to them that he was sick. That appears to have been the last time the heard from him. He is rumoured now to be in the Seychelles, and he has filed no documents and taken no part in these proceedings. The FDA and the Position Statement[8]The Financial Remedies application was listed for FDA on 4 February 2026. The Husband did not file his Form E or any other documentation as required by the Rules. Just before that hearing, Ash Solicitors went “on record” as acting for the Husband, and filed at Court and served on the Wife’s solicitors a document headed “Respondent Husband’s Position Statement for the FDA on Wednesday 04.02.26”. That document contains the following: 1. This Position Statement has been prepared on behalf of the Respondent Husband for the FDA before the Family Court at Brentford on 04.02.26 it sets out the position of the Respondent Husband as at the FDA. 4. It is common knowledge that H suffers from mental health and was hospitalised. It is not clear what H’s mental health is at present. 8. It is common knowledge that H is in no fit mental health state to participate in the financial proceedings and that H’s lack of participation is not intentional.[9]I gloss over the fact that suffering “from mental health” is neither an accurate or helpful term, and is somewhat indicative of the careless approach taken by Ash Solicitors from the beginning.[10]Despite being on the record, Ash Solicitors did not attend the hearing, so the Husband was neither present nor represented. They failed to contact the Court to explain their absence. In the light of the information provided in the Position Statement, the Deputy District Judge understandably ordered that a medical report as to the Husband’s capacity should be prepared as soon as possible, and adjourned the FDA to today. The Court also, in the light of the failure by Ash Solicitors (who at this stage remained on the record) either to attend Court or to explain their non attendance, directed that a member of that firm should file a statement with an explanation as to their conduct, and why no steps had been taken to ascertain the Husband’s capacity to engage in the proceedings. The Judge determined that the Court at the adjourned FDA would consider whether a Wasted Costs order should be made against them.The statement from Ash Solicitors
[11]That statement, signed by Santhya Sasitharan of Ash Solicitors, was duly filed on 24 July. In it, she explains that, after they had first seen the Husband in March 2025, they had been contacted by a Social Worker at the Royal Free Hospital who had provided further information about the Husband’s housing situation. The statement then reads, “We understood that the treatment to be related to his mental health, but we could not contact him or his support worker to confirm this.”[12]However, the statement then continues, “It had been further clarified that it is the Respondent’s father, who suffers from mental health.” The circumstances of this “clarification” are not made clear, but what is clear from correspondence disclosed by Ash solicitors, is that the social worker in question is attached to the a wholly different team at the hospital – a team that has nothing to do with mental health issues.[13]In respect of the decision by Ash Solicitors to go on the record, file the Position Statement and then not attend the FDA, Ms Sasitharan says, “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 statement concludes that they have still heard nothing further from the husband.The hearing before me
[14]Ms Sasitharan attended the hearing before me. At the start of the hearing, Ms Evans on behalf of the Wife confirmed that Mrs Pool did indeed seek an order for Wasted Costs against Ash Solicitors. However, on further inquiry, Ms Evans conceded that no Form N260 had been prepared or served. I then discovered that Ms Sasitharan was a solicitor apprentice and not an admitted solicitor. I expressed some surprise that Ash Solicitors had not thought it appropriate to send a Partner to attend Court to deal with such a serious matter, and I adjourned the hearing briefly to see whether a partner in the firm could be located.[15]In the interim before the hearing recommenced, I received an email from Ms Evans indicating that the Wife no longer pursued her application for Wasted Costs, presumably as a result of the lack of Form N260. However, given the issues that arose from the material I had read, I considered it appropriate to make some inquiry into what had transpired in this case.[16]When the hearing resumed, Ms Veronica Lartey of Ash Solicitors was also present, who was introduced to me as the person with supervisory responsibility for family work at that firm. During the course of the discussion that ensued, the following information came to light:a. Ash Solicitors had no instructions from the Husband to go on the record as his representative in February 2026. They had in fact not heard from him since mid-2025.b. Ms Lartey accepted that the firm had no evidence on which to base the statement in the February 2026 Position Statement that it was “common knowledge” that the Husband lacked the ability to engage in these proceedings; that this comment arise from an assumption made by the firm that the social worker at the Hospital was connected to the Mental Health team. She could offer no explanation for this error.c. Prior to the FDA in February, Ash Solicitors had forwarded the remote link to the hearing to said Social Worker with an invitation that she should attend the hearing. They had done this without the Court’s permission, and indeed without even notifying the Court or the wife’s legal team of their intention so to do.[17]It is an understatement to say that I find this conduct utterly extraordinary. As a result of their behaviour, Ash Solicitors essentially misled the Court into believing(a) that they had instructions to represent the Husband in these proceedings, which they had never had; and(b) that the Husband lacked capacity, a statement for which they had no evidence whatsoever. I do not mean to suggest that the Court was misled deliberately, or that Ash Solicitors had anything to gain from their behaviour. But it betrays carelessness, ignorance of the rules and, it is not too strong to say, utter incompetence on their behalf.[18]Further, Ash Solicitors then took it upon themselves to invite a third party to a confidential hearing without the Court’s permission. In discussions, Ms Lartey accepted – after a struggle – that responsibility for granting permission lay with the Court only.[19]I should add that it would appear that all these steps were conducted by Ms Sasitharan. If that is the case, it is a further poor reflection on the firm, as it betrays their failure to ensure proper and competent supervision of non- admitted staff.[20]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.[21]Finally, however, I have to note that the Wife’s solicitors had exhibited to her statement in these proceedings what appeared to be the entire pleadings from Family Law Act proceedings between these parties. When asked, Ms Evans accepted that permission had not been sought from the Brentford Family Court for the disclosure of those papers into these proceedings, and no order had been made at the original FDA. None of the legal professionals in this case has covered themselves with glory.Conclusion
[22]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.