Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - October 2000 to March 2001 - Case No. C.1162/00, C.473/00 and C.974/00
Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - October 2000 to March 2001
Volume 4 - 2nd REPORT - SESSION 2001-2002
Chapter 2
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
Case No: C.1162/00
Court Service: delay in dealing with claim for costs; failure to reply to correspondence or deal properly with claim for compensation
A judge granted an order for costs to be paid from central funds to Dr S following his acquittal in court proceedings in December 1996. Dr S’s solicitors lodged a claim for determination of costs in January 1997, but the full costs were not finally determined and paid until April 1999, some 27 months later. Meantime Dr S had paid a proportion of his solicitors’ account and the remainder was outstanding. The Court Service poorly handled letters from Dr S’s solicitors chasing progress. The Court Service had already offered a total of £155 (for botheration and the costs of chasing progress) in recognition of those shortcomings. The Ombudsman found that, although most of the delay was legitimately taken up by the statutory processes to determine the level of costs payable, there were unnecessary delays at two stages, which denied Dr S the interest he would otherwise have accrued on his monies. The Chief Executive said that he was unable to concede the principle that interest should be paid in such circumstances. However, in the wholly exceptional circumstances of this particular case and bearing in mind the overall delay to Dr S in recovering the monies that he had expended, he was prepared to offer him an overall ex gratia payment of £233.10 in consideration of his time and trouble. The Ombudsman did not accept the Court Service’s position on lost interest, but welcomed the apologies given and the payment offered, which equated to the sum he had considered appropriate, and which he accepted as acceptable redress in this case. As pursuit of the matters of principle could take place outside the context of the case, and would not affect the outcome for Dr S, the Ombudsman closed the case on that basis.
Back to top
Case No: C.473/01
Court Service: clerical error by the Court Service on a divorce certificate led to refusal of entry clearance for complainant’s spouse
Q County Court incorrectly dated Mr X’s divorce certificate as 3 December 1997 instead of 3 December 1996. Mr X re-married in India on 17 October 1997. When his wife applied for UK entry clearance at the British High Commission in Delhi, on 16 April 1998 she was refused, as it appeared that Mr X had not been free to marry her. Following an appeal against that refusal by Mrs X, on 15 September the entry clearance officer pointed out the problem with the divorce certificate. Mr X’s advisers contacted the court, who confirmed that the date had been mistyped. A visa was issued to Mrs X on 20 November. Mr X complained that he had suffered financial loss and unnecessary stress as a result of the court’s error, and he had had to travel twice to India to re-assure his wife. The Court Service apologised for their error but did not accept that it had caused financial loss. The Ombudsman criticised the Court Service for the error and found that it was such as to cause Mr X a great deal of stress, as it had raised the suspicion that he was a bigamist. However, he did not find that Mr X’s trips to India were necessary to rectify the court’s mistakes. The Court Service agreed to offer Mr X a goodwill payment of £250 in recognition of the distress to him and his wife.
Back to top
Case No: C.974/00
Public Trust Office: maladministration in handling application for appointment of Public Trustee as Receiver and implementing subsequent Order
Mr J, having given up his enduring power of attorney on behalf of his cousin, Mr Y, applied to the Public Trust Office in August 1998 to appoint the Public Trustee as receiver for Mr Y instead. Despite many contacts with Mr J, the Public Trust Office delayed requesting the Court of Protection hearing and serving the necessary notice on Mr Y, who had entered a residential home in September 1998. Those delays meant that Mr Y’s flat was not sold until November 1999, six months later than it might have been. The Ombudsman criticised the Public Trust Office for their failures and delays which caused Mr J unnecessary time and trouble and Mr Y some financial loss. The Public Trust Office agreed to compensate Mr J and Mr Y with £300 and £1,500 respectively, and to amend some defective guidance.
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
|
