Law Lane Solicitors, R (on the application of) v The Legal Ombudsman

Judicial review claims must be brought promptly and within three months unless a good reason justifies an extension. The court considers the seriousness of the delay, the explanation offered, the public importance of the issues, prejudice, and the effect on good administration. Procedural discipline in renewal applications is essential. A claimant may be confined to the grounds identified in its renewal notice, and sanctions may be addressed through costs or unless orders. Permission requires an arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success. Inquisitorial ombudsman schemes should not be approached with undue formality, but the scope of the statutory jurisdiction remains arguable where a complaint was not first raised through the respondent’s complaints procedure. Procedural unfairness is not arguable where the claimant had an opportunity to respond to revised complaints and chose not to do so.

Law Lane Solicitors sought permission to judicially review the Legal Ombudsman’s decision upholding a former client’s complaint and directing payments totalling £66,320.27. The claim challenged the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, the scheme rules applied, the rationality of findings about legal fees and costs recovery, and procedural fairness.

A previous deputy judge refused permission and refused an extension of time. On renewal, the claimant accepted that the claim had been issued 17 days late. Its renewal notice pursued only jurisdiction, procedural unfairness and extension of time. The central issues were whether time should be extended, whether the jurisdictional challenge was arguable, and whether the procedural-fairness ground had a realistic prospect of success.

1. Procedural breaches. The claimant’s renewal notice did not explain why the refusal of permission was wrong. Its bundle, skeleton argument and authorities bundle were served late, without applications for relief. The renewal was therefore confined to the grounds identified in the notice. The court nevertheless permitted reliance on the late skeleton argument on the jurisdictional and procedural-fairness grounds, since the breach could proportionately be addressed through costs.
2. Extension of time. The 17-day delay was significant and serious. The claimant’s asserted complexity, difficulty locating a file, departure of fee earners, and the director’s personal circumstances did not amount to good reasons. The broader circumstances included possible prejudice to the interested party and delay to the Ombudsman’s swift-resolution function. Nevertheless, the arguable jurisdictional ground and the prejudice to the claimant if it could not be heard narrowly outweighed the contrary considerations. Time for issuing the claim was extended to 30 June 2025.
3. Permission. Applying the arguability threshold, the court granted permission on the jurisdictional ground only. It was arguable whether ss. 125 and 126 of the Legal Services Act 2007, together with rules 4.1 and 4.2(b) of the 2019 scheme rules, permitted the Ombudsman to consider complaints not first raised with the solicitors’ complaints procedure. The court accepted that Rosemarine might be distinguishable on its facts.
4. The procedural-fairness ground was unarguable. The claimant had been able to respond to the provisional decision and revised complaints but made no submissions.
5. The proposed costs order and case-management directions, including possible unless orders, were left subject to written submissions where contentious.

This was a renewed first-instance application for permission following refusal of permission and refusal of an extension of time by Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, by order dated 19 November 2025.