Pilgerstorfer: Part of decision quashed
The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has been ordered to reconsider part of its findings of poor service by a direct access barrister after it overlooked a key piece of evidence.
However, Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, dismissed all of Md Abu Sufian’s other challenges [1] to LeO’s decision.
Aside from the mistake of fact, he found neither procedural faults in the way LeO dealt with the case nor unreasonableness or irrationality in its decision making.
Mr Sufian, head of 160 Fleet Street Chambers in London, for ‘Client N’ on several pieces of immigration work, including two oral permission hearings in judicial review proceedings, preparing an appeal to the Court of Appeal – which was conceded before the hearing and led to an order of £16,350 in costs in favour of his client – and a successful challenge to directions to remove the client from the country, again with costs.
Client N complained to Mr Sufian’s chambers about various matters, including that the Court of Appeal costs were paid directly to the barrister. These were rejected, with the chambers saying Client N authorised payment of the costs direct to him.
The client complained on to LeO and, after he refused to accept the investigator’s decision, a final decision was issued by ombudsman Hannah Logue.
She found Client N had agreed that Mr Sufian could keep the Court of Appeal costs but went on to decide he failed to provide adequate costs information throughout his instruction, backdated one client-care letter, and failed to inform her of the costs award.
In deciding remedy, Ms Logue found that Mr Sufian received £27,210.50 but that Client N only reasonably expected to pay £17,298 based on the costs information provided.
However, if she ordered him to refund the difference of £9,912.50, that would have meant Mr Sufian receiving only 39% of the overall costs bill of £44,598. Given that the quality of the actual legal work was good, this would be unfair, Ms Logue decided.
Instead, she reduced the costs bill by 50%, resulting in an order that Mr Sufian refund £4,911.50.
The barrister brought a judicial review on multiple grounds and the only successful element was over one piece of work for which LeO said he did not provide costs information when in fact the client-care letter had expressly quoted a fee of £7,500.
LeO accepted that the evidence pack Ms Logue had used was missing the relevant page and that this amounted to a mistake of existing fact.
This contributed “to a significant extent” to her decision that Mr Sufian had failed to provide reasonable costs information throughout his instruction, Judge Pilgerstorfer held.
Further, it affected the decision on remedy. Under Ms Logue’s original methodology, adding £7,500 to the fees Client N reasonably expected to pay would have meant Mr Sufian was only overpaid by £2,412.50. Given that, she may well have stuck with that approach.
The judge quashed LeO’s decision on the costs information and the remedy and directed it to reconsider them.