Complaint: Chambers refused to consider case
The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) was right to dismiss a complaint it thought better suited to be determined in court, a judge has ruled.
Her Honour Judge Belcher, sitting as a High Court judge, found the bid for permission to challenge the decision as totally without merit.
The claimant, a Mr Adams, initially complained to Fenners Chambers in Cambridge about the advice given by barrister Liam Varnam to the executors of his father’s estate, who were two of the claimant’s siblings.
It concerned the sale of the estate’s main asset, a property, to the son of one of the executors. They sought Mr Varnam’s advice on whether this would breach the self-dealing rule. He said it would not.
The chambers refused to consider the complaint on the basis that Mr Adams was not Mr Varnam’s client. He then complained to LeO.
Ombudsman Amanda Charlton said there was jurisdiction to hear the complaint, as Mr Adams was a beneficiary of the estate, but went on to dismiss it because a court, rather than LeO, was best placed to determine whether or not Mr Varnam’s advice was correct.
HHJ Belcher said Mr Adams’ “principal complaint” was that this would involve him going to court, which would be time consuming and costly.
“That is right. But that is, in my judgment, entirely the proper place to have challenged the fact of the transfer, which is what this is really about.
“The written advice from counsel was not given to the claimant, and he accepts that there would be no duty of care owed to him in the giving of that advice. But that does not alter the fact that he could, had he chosen to do so, have challenged the transfer itself.
“He did not choose to do so, and if that is because of concerns about legal costs involved, those are perfectly proper concerns and matters he is entitled to take into account. But none of that renders the ombudsman’s decision incorrect.”
The judge said there was “no basis at all” to say LeO had acted irrationally. Mr Adams’ objections “self-evidently involve issues of law and issues of fact”, the latter being whether the barrister knew at the time of his advice that the executor was helping his son financially with the purchase.
These were matters “which it is not appropriate or proper for the ombudsman” to deal with.
Mr Adams also complained about aspects of the service – including how his complaint was handled – but Ms Charlton concluded, that because she could not fairly investigate the crux of the complaint, it would not be a good use of time to investigate the rest of it.
A further compelling reason for an investigation not to proceed – as per the wording of LeO’s scheme rules – was that the executors had not raised any concerns about the advice.
HHJ Belcher agreed with LeO that this was “well within” its wide discretion and own guidance about when it could dismiss complaints.
While it was not right to say the complaint stood or fell as a whole, “I find nothing irrational or arguably irrational in the dismissal of these complaints”.
The judge dismissed Mr Adams’ other challenges to LeO’s decision and acceded to its request to declare all of the grounds totally without merit.
Leave a Comment