Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

H S Fernando & P Rajoo

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number10078/2008
Date01/01/2008
OutcomeStrike off, Suspend - Indefinite

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules, Others

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

SanctionStrike Off
CostsGBP 13,214
Dishonesty foundYes

Two solicitor partners at Fernando & Co faced allegations of accounting failures and improper disbursement charges. The Tribunal found all allegations proved. Against the Second Respondent, Purantharan Rajoo, it made an express finding of dishonesty (applying the Twinsectra test) for fabricating a letter and a false post journal entry to mislead the Law Society Forensic Investigators about disclosure of property discounts to a mortgagee client; he was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay £2,500 costs. The First Respondent, Harilal Susantha Fernando (retired abroad, did not participate), was found to have committed accounts and client-care breaches and was suspended indefinitely, ordered to pay £10,714 costs. No joint and several order was made.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Rajoo lied to and attempted to mislead the profession's regulator during an investigation
  • Tribunal could not be satisfied Rajoo would not act similarly again under stress
  • Sharp practices contained elements of hidden profit
  • Fernando failed to engage in the proceedings

Mitigating factors:

  • Rajoo recently qualified (2005), inexperienced, junior partner for only a couple of months at inspection
  • Rajoo admitted the fabrication when confronted
  • Poor training and bad example set by senior partner
  • No identified financial loss to clients
  • Rajoo complied with practising certificate limitations and continued to practise responsibly
  • Momentary, unpremeditated lapse committed under stress

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/10078/