Sufian, R (On the Application Of) v Legal Ombudsman

The Legal Ombudsman has jurisdiction to determine complaints raised by consumers about legal service providers. When doing so, the Ombudsman focuses on what, in his/her opinion, is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The scheme is designed to provide a relatively speedy outcome, without excessive formality or legalism, and affords considerable procedural and decision-making discretion to the Ombudsman.

This Court nonetheless retains a supervisory function by way of judicial review. In this case, two decisions of the Ombudsman were reviewed for public law error: (i) a decision to uphold (in part) a complaint against the Claimant, Mr Sufian, and award a remedy to the complainant; and (ii) a decision allowing the complainant to accept the decision out of time. The alleged errors relate to the procedure adopted by the Ombudsman, including compliance with the Scheme Rules, and whether the conclusions reached were irrational or infected by material errors of fact.

The Claimant, Mr Sufian, is a barrister specialising in a number of areas, including immigration. He is accredited under the direct access scheme, meaning that he can be instructed by members of the public without them first going through a solicitor.

In November 2016, Mr Sufian conducted two oral permission hearings in judicial review proceedings:

The first related to a decision of the Secretary of State to revoke Client N’s visa following an accusation that she obtained an English language certificate by deception. Permission was refused.