Maye, Application for Permission

Judicial review of a Legal Services Ombudsman’s decision examines legality, not the merits of the original complaint against solicitors or the professional body. The Ombudsman’s statutory function is to investigate how a complaint was handled by the relevant professional body. She is not ordinarily required to reinvestigate the original complaint. Whether such reinvestigation is necessary is a matter for her judgment. Permission should be refused where the challenge discloses no arguable error of law. A claimant who pursues a hopeless application may be ordered to pay costs, although the court may limit the costs recoverable.

The claimant challenged a written decision of the Legal Services Ombudsman concerning the Law Society’s handling of complaints about solicitors involved in administering his late father’s estate. The complaints had passed through the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, an adjudicator and an external panel. Moses J had previously refused permission. The renewed application argued that the Ombudsman was legally required to reconsider the merits of the original complaints against the solicitors. The issues were whether that argument was arguable and what costs order should follow.

1. Application for permission. The application was refused. Judicial review is concerned with whether the decision-maker acted unlawfully. It is not a further appeal on the merits of the underlying complaints against the solicitors, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors or the Ombudsman.
2. Function of the Ombudsman. Under section 21 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, the Ombudsman has a power, but not a duty, to investigate a properly made allegation about the manner in which a professional body handled a complaint. Her primary function is to examine the complaints process, rather than to determine the original complaint against the legal professional.
3. There may be cases in which the Ombudsman considers it necessary to return to the original complaint. Whether that course is necessary is for the Ombudsman to decide. The claimant’s submission that she was legally bound to reinvestigate the merits was unsustainable and unarguable.
4. The court had read the Ombudsman’s decision and could detect no arguable error of law. The application was therefore wholly misconceived.
5. Costs. The claimant was ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs, assessed at £1,556.87, limited to the costs of filing the acknowledgement of service. The court declined to award the additional costs of attending the hearing, referring to the usual practice on the basis of Mount Cook.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Moses J refused permission on paper on 4 November 2004. Mr Maye renewed the application, which Mr Justice Hughes refused in [2005] EWHC 1217 (Admin).