R (on the application of Legal & General Assurance Society Ltd) v Pensions Ombudsman 2

Reference: (2002) 49 PBLR, (2002) 90 PBLR

A complaint was made against Legal & General (L&G) who asked the Ombudsman for an extension of time to respond to his preliminary conclusions in the matter as those who had advised on it were on or about to go on holiday.

The Ombudsman refused the request for an extension, apparently on the basis that he (Dr Farrand) was about to step down as Ombudsman and that he wished to complete the necessary work on the determination. L&G sought judicial review of this decision.

The court held that L&G would normally be expected to be entitled to have the assistance of those professional advisers who had been instructed throughout the proceedings and had assisted in compiling its response to the preliminary conclusions so it would be prejudiced by their absence. There were substantial issues involved on which L&G would be entitled to the benefit of advice from those who had been involved so far. L&G would clearly be prejudiced by not being able to have the benefit of the views of its existing advisers which clearly outweighed any detriment suffered by anyone in delaying the matter.