A firm has been granted permission to pursue its judicial review against a legal ombudsman decision against it despite its ‘poor compliance with case management directions’, as it would face greater prejudice should it not be allowed to argue its case.

A former client of Law Lane Solicitors took his complaint to the legal ombudsman who found the service provided by the London firm was ‘not reasonable’. It directed the firm pay £66,320.67 compensation, refund the fees paid and a waiver of unpaid fees.

Maisour Gram instructed Law Lane Solicitors to help him recover funds he had invested in a business. The claim was eventually successful. Two years later, Gram lodged a formal complaint related to fees and costs, to which the firm responded. The day after the firm’s response, Gram complained to the legal ombudsman. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, though the firm disagreed with the findings and began a claim for judicial review, but missed the deadline by 17 days. 

The judgment in Law Lane Solicitors, R (on the application of) v The Legal Ombudsman states that the firm had committed a number of procedural breaches including not setting out why it disagreed with the judge’s reasons for refusing permission for an extension of time and documents not served on time.

Andrew Kinnier KC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, said: ‘The importance of procedural rigour in judicial review proceedings has been repeatedly emphasised by the senior courts.’ The judge found the firm had ‘sufficient time to prepare the claim to ensure that it was issued promptly and within three months of the decision’ and ‘no good reason’ had been given for not doing so.

Read more

Granting an extension of time for the issue of the claim, the judge said the firm’s ‘past failings can be addressed by a costs order’ and future compliance ‘achieved by sanctions such as an unless order’.

He added: ‘The fact that the claimant has an arguable ground of challenge and the consequential prejudice should it not be allowed to argue its case at a full hearing, tip (but only just) the balance in favour of allowing the application.’

The firm’s jurisdictional ground – whether sections 125 and 126 of the Legal Services Act 2007 and the scheme rules allow the legal ombudsman to consider a complaint which was not first raised with the claimant – was found to be arguable. The judge gave permission for the firm to rely on it but refused permission on its procedural unfairness ground.

The judge ordered the firm pay the ombudsman's costs of the renewal application subject to summary assessment.