A former solicitor who was struck off the roll has been ordered to repay £92,000 and pay substantial legal costs after a court found that he abandoned his clients and seriously abused the court process.
Darren Hanison, who previously represented six women pursuing vaginal mesh claims against NHS bodies, was criticised for failing to submit essential court documents before a scheduled hearing in 2022. His failure resulted in the hearing being postponed, causing unnecessary delays and additional legal costs.
The six claims formed part of a wider group of 305 vaginal mesh cases. Hanison’s former practice, Fortitude Law, was closed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in 2023 amid concerns over suspected dishonesty. Earlier this year, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck him off after upholding 17 allegations, including dishonesty, misleading clients, poor professional service, and serious regulatory breaches.
During a costs hearing in HD & Others v North Devon Healthcare Trust & Others, the defendants sought repayment of £92,000 that had previously been paid on account. They also requested that Hanison personally cover the costs of the abandoned 2022 hearing, along with expenses arising from the detailed assessment proceedings.
Costs Judge Joseph ruled that Hanison had breached the terms of his retainers and had effectively abandoned his clients without any legitimate justification. The court found no evidence that any of the claimants had acted in a way that would have entitled him to terminate his representation.
The judge also emphasised that a solicitor on the court record has a clear responsibility to comply with court directions and file the required documents. Hanison’s failure to do so was described as a serious breach of his duties to the court, with no reasonable explanation for his conduct.
Finding that Hanison’s behaviour amounted to a serious abuse of the court’s process, the judge ordered him to repay the £92,000 and pay the defendants’ legal costs on an indemnity basis. These include the costs of the abandoned 2022 hearing, the detailed assessment proceedings, and the most recent applications.
The court also acknowledged the undertakings provided by the defendants, which ensured that the claimants themselves would not face personal liability for the legal costs arising from Hanison’s misconduct.
