The legal ombudsman was wrong to award an additional £15,692 remedy to a law firm’s client over the firm’s failure to adequately assess a client’s capacity, the High Court has found.

Aina Khan Law Ltd, a family law specialist, challenged the ombudsman's decision to uphold parts of a complaint made to it by a former client. The LeO required the firm to pay £51,192.60.

The London-based firm challenged the award arguing that the LeO had exceeded its remit, discriminated against the small firm by making an award disproportionate to its turnover and that the judgment was 'fundamentally flawed and unreasonable'. 

In Aina Khan Law v Legal Ombudsman, David Pievsky KC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, criticised the firm’s late filing of relevant documents but was 'unable to accept' that the LeO's conclusions on capacity were rational. 

The further grounds, of remit and discrimination, failed.

Read more

The judge said the firm had succeeded ‘on a significantly narrower basis than sought’ and the costs order needed ‘to reflect the court’s disapproval of the claimant’s failure to have filed the relevant evidence in this case at the appropriate time - a failure which led to the substantive hearing on 6 March 2025 being adjourned, causing cost and delay to the other parties, and inconvenience to the court’.

He awarded the firm £19,036 - 40% of the costs sought.