Catherine Deborah Alexander v Legal Ombudsman
[2024] EWHC 886 (Admin)
Adams, R (on the application of) v Legal Ombudsman
9 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 2818 (Admin)
High Court
A man complained to the Legal Ombudsman about a barrister's advice in a family property dispute. The Ombudsman decided not to investigate some complaints, saying they were better dealt with by a court. The judge agreed with the Ombudsman, saying the Ombudsman had the right to decide how to handle the case and that the man's complaints weren't strong enough to overturn the Ombudsman's decision.
Key Facts
- •Claimant sought permission to challenge the Legal Ombudsman's decisions dismissing his complaints against a barrister.
- •The complaints concerned the barrister's advice to executors regarding a property sale involving self-dealing rules.
- •The property sale involved the executor's son purchasing the property, partly funded by the executor.
- •The Ombudsman dismissed some complaints as better suited for court determination (rule 5.7(g)), others due to lack of compelling reason for investigation (rule 5.7(n)), and one due to an error that didn't affect the outcome.
- •The Claimant argued the Ombudsman lacked the legal expertise to assess the self-dealing advice, and that there was bias and a breach of legitimate expectation.
Legal Principles
The Ombudsman's office is not best placed to determine the correctness of barrister's advice on complex legal matters like self-dealing.
Ombudsman's decision and Judge's reasoning
The Ombudsman has wide discretion in dismissing complaints under rule 5.7(g) and 5.7(n) if the matter is better suited to court or there is no compelling reason for investigation.
Legal Services Act 2007, section 136; Ombudsman's scheme rules; Judge's interpretation
To establish apparent bias, specific evidence is needed, mere disagreement with the Ombudsman's decision is insufficient.
Judge's assessment of the bias claim
A legitimate expectation requires a clear representation that a complaint will be investigated. A decision not to dismiss a complaint at a preliminary stage does not create such an expectation.
Judge's analysis of legitimate expectation claim
Outcomes
The renewed application for permission to challenge the Ombudsman's decisions was refused.
The Judge found no merit in any of the Claimant's grounds of challenge. The Ombudsman acted within their discretion.
Complaints 1-3 dismissed under rule 5.7(g)
Issues of law and fact regarding the barrister's advice were better dealt with by a court.
Complaints 4-7 dismissed under rule 5.7(n)
The Ombudsman determined that the service issues raised were peripheral to the core complaint and not worth investigating given the circumstances.
Similar Cases
Mark Moss, R (on the application of) v The Service Complaints Ombudsman of the Armed Forces (No 3) (Remedy)
[2024] EWHC 669 (Admin)
Radoslaw Kaleta, R (on the application of) v The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
[2024] EWHC 1038 (Admin)
Anna Christie v Mary Ward Legal Centre & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1814 (KB)
Peter John Wareing v Bar Standards Board
[2024] EWHC 2946 (Admin)