Kerman & Co Llp, R (On the Application Of) v Legal Ombudsman

Kerman & Co Llp, R (On the Application Of) v Legal Ombudsman

Section 132(2) Legal Services Act 2007 and Scheme Rule 2.10 are consumer protection provisions intended to ensure continuity of complaints when a legal practice ceases and its business is succeeded. 'Ceasing to exist' refers to the cessation of the regulated entity, not the death of the individual. Kerman & Co LLP succeeded to the business and goodwill of PS Levy & Co, which ceased to exist as an authorised person. Therefore, the Legal Ombudsman has jurisdiction to treat Kerman & Co LLP as the respondent for the complaint originally against PS Levy & Co.

Parties
Claimant: Kerman & Co LLP; Defendant: Legal Ombudsman; Interested Party: Peter Stephen Levy; Interested Party: Mrs Marilyn Schroeder
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Defendant has jurisdiction to proceed; Kerman & Co LLP is the proper respondent.
Legal Topics
Successor Practice Liability, Legal Ombudsman Jurisdiction, Statutory Interpretation, Consumer Protection
Administrative Law Legal Profession Regulation Successor Practice Liability Legal Ombudsman Jurisdiction Statutory Interpretation Consumer Protection

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kerman & Co LLP

Claimant

Legal Ombudsman

Defendant

Peter Stephen Levy

Interested Party

Mrs Marilyn Schroeder

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Legal Ombudsman has jurisdiction to treat Kerman & Co LLP as the respondent for a complaint originally against PS Levy & Co.
  2. 2 Interpretation of section 132(2) Legal Services Act 2007 regarding successor liability for complaints.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 132(2) Legal Services Act 2007 and Scheme Rule 2.10 are consumer protection provisions intended to ensure continuity of complaints when a legal practice ceases and its business is succeeded. 'Ceasing to exist' refers to the cessation of the regulated entity, not the death of the individual. Kerman & Co LLP succeeded to the business and goodwill of PS Levy & Co, which ceased to exist as an authorised person. Therefore, the Legal Ombudsman has jurisdiction to treat Kerman & Co LLP as the respondent for the complaint originally against PS Levy & Co.

Court Disposition

Defendant has jurisdiction to proceed; Kerman & Co LLP is the proper respondent.

Orders

  • Submissions invited on final order and costs.