On 23 June 2026, the Court of Appeal (Coulson, Baker and Holgate LLJ) handed down a unanimous judgment in R (Aina Khan Law Ltd) v Legal Ombudsman [2026] EWCA Civ 773. Stephen Kosmin acted for the successful appellant, the Legal Ombudsman, in the Court of Appeal.
The appeal concerned Aina Khan Law Ltd’s (“AKL”) challenge to a decision of the Legal Ombudsman dated 12 February 2024, by which the Ombudsman had upheld a complaint that AKL had failed adequately to assess the interested party’s litigation capacity and had charged her excessive costs for work completed on her behalf. At first instance, AKL had succeeded on a single ground alleging process irrationality. The Court of Appeal allowed the Legal Ombudsman’s appeal, setting aside the quashing order and costs order of the Administrative Court. The Court of Appeal held at [75]: “Reading the ombudsman’s decision letter fairly and as a whole, in the context of the Law Society’s Guidance, I do not consider that there was any irrationality of any kind in her reasoning and decision. I must respectfully disagree with the judge. I consider that the ombudsman was entitled to reach the conclusions she did on the materials before her and that she gave legally adequate reasoning.” As to the judgment below, the Court of Appeal held: “He did not read the relevant parts of the decision as a whole” (at [76]); “The judge’s criticisms of the ombudsman’s reasoning were unjustified” (at [79]); and “The judge’s approach .. was selective” (at [80]).
The Court of Appeal’s judgment gives important guidance about the correct approach the Administrative Court should take to reviewing decisions of ombudsmen. It also contains an interesting analysis of the Legal Ombudsman’s statutory scheme and the nature of the obligation to give reasons in the context of an inquisitorial scheme. The judgment can be accessed here. At first instance and during the early stages of the appeal, Stephen Kosmin was instructed together with Leo Davidson.
