A London law firm has been granted permission to proceed with a judicial review of a decision made by the Legal Ombudsman, despite a series of procedural shortcomings during the early stages of the claim.
The High Court ruled that preventing the firm from continuing its challenge would cause greater prejudice than allowing the case to proceed, even though the claimant had failed to fully comply with case management directions.
The proceedings arise from a complaint brought by a former client against Law Lane Solicitors. The ombudsman concluded that the service provided to the client was unreasonable and ordered the firm to pay compensation of £66,320.67, refund fees already paid, and waive outstanding fees.
The client had instructed the firm to assist with recovering funds invested in a business venture. While the underlying claim was ultimately successful, the client later raised concerns relating to costs and fees. Following correspondence with the firm, the complaint was escalated to the ombudsman, which upheld the complaint.
The firm disputed the findings and sought to challenge the decision through judicial review. However, the claim was issued 17 days outside the applicable deadline, and the court identified multiple procedural failings, including late service of documents and deficiencies in how earlier refusals were addressed.
In his judgment, Andrew Kinnier KC emphasised the importance of procedural discipline in judicial review proceedings, noting that the firm had sufficient time to issue the claim within the required period and had not provided a compelling justification for its delay.
Nevertheless, the court granted an extension of time, stating that past failures could be addressed through costs consequences and future compliance enforced through procedural sanctions if necessary. The judge concluded that the firm had raised an arguable point of law and that denying it the opportunity to pursue the claim would be disproportionately prejudicial.
The court found it arguable whether sections 125 and 126 of the Legal Services Act 2007 permit the ombudsman to consider complaints that were not first raised with the legal service provider. Permission was granted on this jurisdictional ground, though permission was refused on arguments relating to procedural unfairness.
The firm was ordered to pay the ombudsman’s costs associated with the renewal application, subject to summary assessment.
