Key Facts
- •Claimant sought permission for judicial review of the Legal Ombudsman's decision dismissing her complaint against her former solicitors.
- •The complaint related to a house purchase in 2004, concerning a £500 allowance for a dropped kerb.
- •The claim was filed outside the three-month time limit for judicial review.
- •The Claimant is profoundly deaf and experienced difficulties with court processes.
- •The Defendant and Interested Party did not appear at the hearing.
- •The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Legal Principles
Judicial review is the procedure to challenge the lawfulness of a decision, not its merits.
Case law
Courts are slow to interfere with decisions of Ombudsmen and independent adjudicators.
R (Siborurema) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator [2007] EWCA Civ. 1365
An Ombudsman's decision can only be overturned if it was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it.
Case law
The court has power to extend time for compliance with rules.
Civil Procedure Rules, Rule 3.1(2)(a)
Judicial review claims should be brought within three months.
Civil Procedure Rules, Rule 54
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review refused.
The Ombudsman's decision was not so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have reached it. The claim did not raise any arguable error of law or procedure. Human rights claims were unsubstantiated.
Extension of time granted for filing the claim.
The claimant had handed in her papers to the court within a reasonable timeframe, considering her hearing impairment.
Claim certified as totally without merit.
The claim lacked any reasonable cause of action and was bound to fail.
Claimant ordered to pay Defendant's costs.
The claim was not arguable on any grounds.