Simcox Associates v Council of the Law Society

A complaints adjudicator acting under Schedule 1A to the Solicitors Act 1974 may direct a solicitor to redraw bills where that is part of implementing a permitted limitation or waiver of costs, rectifying identified deficiencies, or taking other action in the client’s interests. The power is not excluded because detailed assessment proceedings are pending. The statutory prohibition on other proceedings following non-compliance with a direction preserves the complaints and directions process. A contribution towards investigation costs may reflect the seriousness of upheld complaints, the total investigation cost, and the fact that the profession bears the expense. An interested party may receive costs where it reasonably attends to defend serious allegations, and a solicitor represented through his firm is not treated as a litigant in person.

Simcox Associates, a firm of solicitors, sought judicial review of decisions made by an adjudicator exercising delegated functions of the Legal Complaints Service. Beatson J granted permission on two limited grounds: whether the adjudicator could direct substituted or redrawn bills of costs, and whether the contribution ordered towards the complaint investigation was lawful.

The adjudicator had upheld complaints concerning inadequate costs information and related professional service failures. He directed reductions and waivers of costs, required revised bills where necessary, and ordered payment of £840 towards investigation costs. The claimant challenged those directions as ultra vires and challenged the costs assessment. The court also considered costs payable to an interested party and the basis on which that party’s solicitor should be treated for costs purposes.

1. Substantive claim dismissed. The adjudicator’s directions and costs decision were within the powers delegated under Schedule 1A to the Solicitors Act 1974.
2. Under paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 1A, the adjudicator could require clarity in the bills so that the extent of the costs waiver could be calculated. The direction was within paragraph 2(1)(a), as a mechanism for implementing the permitted requirement that the right to recover costs be waived. It also fell within paragraph 2(1)(b), as rectification of deficiencies, and, alternatively, paragraph 2(1)(d), as other action in the client’s interests.
3. The existence of detailed assessment proceedings did not prevent the direction. The adjudicator had expressly recognised the parallel court process and could reserve further directions to himself. Paragraph 5.1 was permissive. Its reference to no other proceedings did not prevent the complaints process from dealing with non-compliance and issuing consequential directions.
4. The £840 contribution was lawful under paragraph 7(b). The adjudicator could consider that the investigation costs were borne by the profession as a whole, the total cost of the investigation, the fact that some complaints failed, and the seriousness of those upheld. The reference to a concession did not show that he had failed to apply the statutory test, and the policy limit did not unlawfully fetter his discretion.
5. An interested party was awarded its costs because the original claim contained substantial allegations of misconduct against it and the limited permission and late clarification of the claimant’s case made attendance reasonable. For costs purposes, Mr Knapper was treated as acting as a principal of his firm, Fursdon Knapper, and therefore not as a litigant in person. The interested party’s costs were summarily assessed at £6,631.60 after deductions. Permission to appeal was refused because there was no realistic prospect of success.

First-instance judicial review claim. Permission had previously been refused by Hickinbottom J and, on renewal, Beatson J granted permission on two limited grounds. The claim was dismissed by the Administrative Court, which also refused permission to appeal.