Aina Khan Law Limited, R (on the application of) v Legal Ombudsman

In judicial review of a Legal Ombudsman determination, the court must respect the scheme’s inquisitorial and informal nature and the ombudsman’s wide evaluative discretion. Review is not a merits appeal. The decision must be read fairly and as a whole, without demanding the structure or detail of a judicial judgment. A decision-maker need not expressly address every relevant consideration. An obligation arises only where the scheme requires it or the consideration is so obviously material that it would be irrational to disregard it. The ombudsman may consider both litigation capacity and the broader needs of a vulnerable client. Those concepts are distinct. Mental health issues may justify support without establishing incapacity. Process irrationality requires reasoning that cannot logically support the conclusion.

CXV instructed Aina Khan Law Limited in urgent family proceedings. The Legal Ombudsman found that the firm had failed adequately to address her vulnerability and possible litigation-capacity issues, and had failed to keep her informed about escalating costs. Compensation was awarded for both complaints.

On judicial review, the High Court rejected most challenges but quashed the £15,692.60 award relating to capacity and made a partial costs order: [2025] EWHC 1319 (Admin). The Legal Ombudsman appealed. The central issues were the proper approach to reviewing an ombudsman’s reasoning, the distinction between capacity and vulnerability, and whether the compensation award was irrational.

1. Appeal allowed. The High Court’s quashing order and costs order were set aside. The Legal Ombudsman’s determination therefore stood.
2. Part 6 of the Legal Services Act 2007 establishes an inquisitorial and non-adversarial scheme intended to resolve complaints quickly and with minimum formality. The ombudsman must determine complaints by what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances and has flexible powers to provide redress. Judicial review does not permit the court to substitute its own merits judgment. Intervention is justified for public-law error, including process irrationality where the reasoning is not logically capable of supporting the conclusion.
3. An ombudsman’s decision must be read fairly and as a whole, with a degree of benevolence and in a straightforward, down-to-earth manner. It should not be treated as a statute or formal judgment. The duty to give reasons does not require an ombudsman to address every relevant consideration or to meet the standards applicable to a judicial decision in an adversarial trial.
4. A decision-maker is not shown to have disregarded a relevant consideration merely because it is not mentioned. The court normally looks for a positive indication of disregard. A duty to take a matter into account arises only where the statutory scheme requires it or where the matter is so obviously material that it would be irrational to disregard it. The High Court had adopted an excessively selective and legalistic approach to the decision letter.
5. The ombudsman was entitled to consider both whether CXV lacked litigation capacity and whether, as a vulnerable client with mental health problems, she required additional support. Mental capacity and vulnerability are distinct and may require different responses. On the evidence, the ombudsman was entitled to conclude that the firm should have acted earlier to assess the position and consider support, including assistance from family members.
6. Ground 2 was rejected. Ground 3 would have failed, although it was academic once ground 1 succeeded. Ground 4 also failed. The costs order below was nevertheless set aside because the appeal succeeded.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Appeal allowed on the Legal Ombudsman’s challenge to the quashing order. The order setting aside the £15,692.60 award and the High Court costs order were set aside: [2026] EWCA Civ 773.
• High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court — The judge rejected grounds 1 and 2 and upheld the costs-related part of the determination, but accepted the irrationality challenge to the capacity-related award and quashed it: [2025] EWHC 1319 (Admin).