Faiz Siddiqui, R (on the application of) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd

A court will rarely reopen its reasoning after judgment has been handed down. A request to change the result before sealing must be clear and procedurally fair, and must respect finality. Costs ordinarily follow the event; permission to bring judicial review, complexity, public importance, or an unsupported assertion of hardship will not ordinarily displace that rule. Under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r 44.2(8), a reasonable payment on account should be ordered where costs are subject to detailed assessment unless good reason is shown. A stay of execution requires reliable evidence of special circumstances and a real risk of injustice or stifling. Unsupported medical material, absence of evidence of means or enforcement, and failure to challenge the costs order will not suffice.

The claimant brought judicial review proceedings against Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd, with ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance Company Limited as interested party, concerning legal expenses insurance cover for a proposed claim against his father. The claim was dismissed in an earlier judgment, [2026] EWHC 1598 (Admin), and the claimant was ordered to pay costs and £25,000 on account.

Permission to appeal against the substantive grounds was refused. The claimant then sought a stay of execution of the costs order, relying on claimed ill-health, medical evidence, access to justice and the Equality Act 2010. The central questions were whether the court should revisit its earlier judgment, whether a stay was justified by special circumstances or the balance of harm, and whether the payment on account should be suspended or staged.

1. Disposition. The application for a stay of execution was refused. The existing order, including the £25,000 payment on account, remained in force. The court declined to certify the application as Totally Without Merit, having regard to the claimant’s asserted ill-health.
2. Change of mind. The claimant relied on the jurisdiction purportedly arising from Barrell [1973] 1 WLR 19. The request did not identify whether additional reasons or a different result was sought. The defendant had not been given directions to respond, and finality in litigation weighed against reopening the judgment after hand down. The court therefore declined to change its mind. It also rejected the asserted merits points: Dhak was an applicable example of deliberateness preventing an event from being an accident; the Ombudsman was entitled to reject fortuity and novus actus interveniens; there was no elision of the legal tests; and adequate reasons had been given.
3. Costs. Costs are discretionary, but the general rule is that costs follow the event. Permission to bring judicial review, complexity, public importance and unsupported claims of limited means did not justify departing from that rule. Detailed assessment was appropriate. Under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r 44.2(8), a reasonable sum on account was required unless good reason was shown. The claimant had provided no evidence of hardship or means. He was permitted to apply for staged payments if he supplied full and frank financial disclosure.
4. Stay and evidential burden. Applying the balance of harm and the special-circumstances test in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r 83.7(4)(a), the court found an insufficient evidential basis for a stay. No permission to appeal had been sought against the costs order or interim payment. There was no evidence of enforcement, inability to pay or stifling of the appeal. The court applied the principle in Mahan Air & Anor v Blue Sky One Ltd & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 544 that a party alleging that financial conditions would stifle an appeal must provide full and frank evidence of means.
5. Medical and equality evidence. The psychiatrist’s letter was given little weight. It lacked instructions, a recent assessment, supporting physiological testing, an explanation of relevant expertise, a statement of truth and compliance with CPR Part 35, and did not explain material changes in the claimant’s circumstances. Reliance on section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 did not identify the adjustment sought. The court noted, without hearing argument, the possible relevance of paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 and the judicial-functions exemption from section 29 duties. The claimant could seek staged payment by proper evidence or renew the stay application before the Court of Appeal with proper evidence.

• High Court (Administrative Court): An earlier judgment, [2026] EWHC 1598 (Admin) , dismissed the judicial review claim. An order dated 3 July 2026 required payment of the defendant’s costs and £25,000 on account under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r 44.2(8).
• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal against the substantive grounds was refused on 17 July 2026. No permission to appeal was sought against the costs order or interim payment.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The present application for a stay of execution was refused. The existing order was not varied.