Gordon Neave v SLCC: Complaints body did not act irrationally in exercise of its discretion

The complainer was appealing against the SLCC’s decision that his complaint was time barred.

He submitted that the SLCC’s decision was based on an error in law and that the SLCC had acted irrationally in the exercise of its discretion.

In refusing leave to appeal, the court, however, found that that the SLCC was entitled to reach the decision it did.

The court was not persuaded that the decision was based on an error of law or that the SLCC acted irrationally in the exercise of its discretion.

SLCC case investigations manager Mark Paxton said: “We welcome the court’s opinion that we were entitled to reach the conclusions we did. Making robust decisions on whether complaints can be accepted for further investigation or not is the largest part of our workload, both in the number of cases and the number of staff.

“In this case we were also awarded expenses, which is important in ensuring the costs to not fall on the profession at large.”

He added: “It is a striking anomaly in the legislation for legal complaints that the decision whether or not to look at an issue further is appealable directly to the highest court in the country – even before any conclusion on the outcome of the complaint.

“This often causes costs, delays or distress for all parties, and a significant cost within our budget, ultimately funded by the profession. This can only be fixed by primary legislation, which is why the SLCC has publicly supported the recommendations for reform from the Roberton Review.”