Complaint: LeO entitled to dismiss
A man whose application for permission to bring a judicial review against the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) was certified as totally without merit has been ordered to pay £10,000 in costs.
Her Honour Judge Belcher, sitting as a High Court judge, said John David William Adams had made “very serious allegations of dishonesty” against LeO, including that it was “deliberately avoiding deciding matters and acting in bad faith, allegations which run throughout the claim”.
Mr Adams initially complained to Fenners Chambers in Cambridge about advice given by barrister Liam Varnam to the executors of his father’s estate, two of the claimant’s siblings.
The chambers refused to consider the complaint on the basis that Mr Adams was not Mr Varnam’s client. He then complained to LeO.
HHJ Belcher ruled last year that there was nothing irrational in LeO’s decision to dismiss the complaint.
Ruling on costs, a judgment given in May but only just published, the judge said Mr Adams had made “serious allegations” against both LeO and Mr Varnam, who was an ‘interested party’ (IP) in the litigation.
Counsel for LeO submitted that the case “amounts to a judicial review on the basis of disagreement with the ombudsman, by reason of allegations of bad faith, dishonesty, and bias” of both LeO and the IP. HHJ Belcher said: “In my judgement, that is an entirely fair characterisation.”
When permission to bring the judicial review was rejected on the papers, costs were awarded against Mr Adams, which he challenged.
LeO sought costs of £2,400 for the acknowledgement of service, which it had previously been awarded, plus the cost of the costs hearing, on the grounds of exceptional circumstances. This was based both on the “hopeless” grounds for the claim and “the persistence of the claimant in pursuing the matters after being alerted to facts and/or law demonstrating its hopelessness”.
LeO pointed out that Mr Adams had previously brought almost identical proceedings in relation to this matter” against the solicitors involved and LeO. The application for permission was refused on the papers in September 2023.
HHJ Belcher said: “I find there are exceptional circumstances, by reason both of the hopelessness of the claim, and the persistence of this claimant in continuing it, and the constant and repeated allegations of dishonesty, and bad faith.”
She said that LeO had made a without-prejudice offer inviting Mr Adams to withdraw his proceedings, “given that by that date there were now two written decisions and a judgment in person refusing permission to bring judicial review”.
The offer was that LeO would allow him to discontinue in return for payment of the costs already ordered. Mr Adams did not accept it.
HHJ Belcher said Mr Adams had been “dazzled” by his views that everything was designed by LeO and the IP to “avoid their responsibilities and therefore must involve bad faith, dishonesty, some form of scam or conspiracy” to avoid dealing with his allegations.
“He is not able to stand back and look at what has happened in the other cases and apply that reasoning to this.”
Mr Adams’ criticisms of the costs awarded to LeO for its acknowledgement of service were “wholly unfair” and the judge added to them the costs of the hearing, assessed at £4,100, making a total of £6,500.
The judge said the IP, so as not to “inflame the situation”, made no claim for the costs of the hearing. His costs for the acknowledgement of service were assessed at £3,500.
Leave a Comment