The Court of Appeal has restored a Legal Ombudsman award of approximately £15,700 against family law firm Aina Khan Law, reversing a High Court decision that had earlier set that element aside. The unanimous ruling, handed down on 24 June 2026, reinstates a reduction in the firm's fees that the ombudsman had ordered after finding shortcomings in how the client's case was handled. The judgment reaffirms the scope of the Legal Ombudsman's authority and the limits of judicial review over its determinations.
Background to the Complaint
The dispute arose from a complaint brought by a client, referred to in proceedings as CXV, concerning the firm's conduct of family proceedings. The Legal Ombudsman examined the matter and concluded that the firm had failed to assess the client's litigation capacity adequately and had charged fees that were excessive in the circumstances. The ombudsman ordered redress totalling £51,192.60, comprising a costs refund of £35,500 and a further capacity-related fee reduction of £15,692.60, equivalent to around 20 per cent of the net fees charged.
The High Court Decision
The firm challenged the ombudsman's determination through judicial review. In 2025, the High Court, with David Pievsky KC sitting as a deputy judge, partially quashed the ruling. The court upheld the £35,500 costs refund but struck down the capacity-related reduction of £15,692.60, removing that portion of the overall award. The decision left the ombudsman's finding on litigation capacity without practical effect and reduced the total redress payable to the complainant.
The Court of Appeal's Ruling
On appeal, a unanimous Court of Appeal restored the capacity-related sum. Lord Justice Holgate, giving judgment, held that the High Court had approached the ombudsman's decision too selectively and had strayed beyond the proper boundaries of judicial review. The appellate court found that the earlier judgment had engaged with questions of fact and merit that fell within the ombudsman's remit rather than the court's supervisory role. As a result, the full award, including the £15,692.60 element, was reinstated.
Significance for the Ombudsman's Remit
The ruling underlines the distinction between reviewing the lawfulness of a decision and re-examining its substance. In restoring the award, the Court of Appeal signalled that courts should be cautious about substituting their own view for that of a specialist body acting within its jurisdiction. The outcome confirms that the Legal Ombudsman's assessments on matters such as litigation capacity and fee reasonableness carry weight unless a clear public-law error can be shown.
The decision carries wider implications for how legal complaints are resolved and challenged in England and Wales. By reaffirming the reach of the Legal Ombudsman and narrowing the space for merits-based challenge on judicial review, the judgment strengthens the finality of ombudsman determinations and may deter future appeals founded on disagreement with factual findings. For law firms, it reinforces the importance of assessing client capacity and ensuring fees remain proportionate, while for consumers it offers reassurance that redress ordered by the ombudsman is not easily displaced by the courts.
