Struck-off solicitor ordered to pay SRA costs after buying new house

A former solicitor who had originally avoided paying his costs order has been told to pay up after it was found he had jointly bought a £440,000 house.

Duncan Dollimore was struck off by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in 2016 but was told that a £10,000 costs order would not be enforced at the time due to his financial circumstances.

That situation changed after investigations by the SRA found that Dollimore had bought a property with his partner in 2019. The regulator therefore acted to protected its status as a creditor by submitting an application with the SDT to enforce the costs order.

Dollimore initially contested the application, saying he owned only 5% of the equity of the property and that the prospects of being able to sell in the current market were ‘not high’.

Solicitor Stephen Wade of Bishop & Sewell, for the SRA, responded that it was ‘just and reasonable’ for it to have leave to enforce the order in fairness to other creditors.

He added: ‘Although you have a limited interest in your matrimonial home, it is an asset from which payment of the costs can be made. Therefore the grounds for imposing the limitation on the costs awarded in the first place do not exist. Further, given your partner’s superior interest in the equity in the property there is no question of you being unable to be rehoused following the sale of the property.’

Before the tribunal, Dollimore agreed in principle for enforcement of the costs order but pointed out that the SRA’s delay in making the application was unfair and prejudicial in that it had allowed interest to accrue over a longer period of time.

The SDT concluded Dollimore was no longer impecunious and could afford to pay, particularly given that he was now employed on a salary of almost £50,000.

The judgment added: ‘The reputation of the profession required costs against solicitors against whom findings had been made to be recovered if possible. The reasons upon which the original restriction on enforcement of costs was predicated no longer represented the financial position of [Dollimore].’

The tribunal further ordered that Dollimore pay the £1,000 costs of the application.