APPEAL BY ABERDEEN COMPUTER SERVICES LTD AGAINST A DECISION OF THE SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Factual and Procedural Background

On 12 April 2017, the Appellant submitted a complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission ("the Commission") regarding the conduct and services provided by a firm of solicitors and two of its solicitors following the appointment of a judicial factor to the Appellant in 2011. Nine issues of complaint were initially agreed between the Commission and the Appellant. The Commission initially considered the complaints as conduct complaints but later re-categorised them as services complaints, holding that four of the issues were time-barred. Further issues were identified and added to the complaint after the Commission's investigation report.

The Commission issued eligibility decisions that some issues were time-barred and others were without merit, and subsequently issued a determination report upholding part of two issues and dismissing others, awarding the Appellant £200 compensation for inadequate professional service.

The Appellant applied for leave to appeal the Commission's decision on grounds including errors of law, procedural impropriety, irrationality, and breaches of natural justice. The Commission did not initially lodge answers but later accepted procedural impropriety in respect of certain issues and proposed a joint minute, which the Appellant declined. The appeal proceeded on written submissions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Commission's decision was based on errors of law.
2. Whether there was procedural impropriety in the Commission's conduct of the complaint hearing.
3. Whether the Commission acted irrationally in exercising its discretion.
4. Whether common law rules of natural justice were breached.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Commission committed procedural impropriety by determining certain issues without allowing the Appellant to make representations on material matters.
• The Commission failed to investigate some issues thoroughly and made irrational findings.
• The Appellant sought damages from the Commission but did not provide a legal basis or method for assessment.
• The Appellant requested that the court itself investigate and determine all complaint issues rather than remit them to the Commission.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Commission's arguments beyond its acceptance of procedural impropriety and its position as set out in its late answers and proposed joint minute.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the statutory framework under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007, particularly sections 21 and 22, which govern appeals against Commission decisions. It emphasized that the Commission has the primary role to investigate and determine complaints, while the court functions as an appellate body limited to reviewing grounds such as errors of law, procedural impropriety, irrationality, or factual support.

The court found procedural impropriety in the Commission's failure to allow the Appellant to make representations after re-categorising certain complaints as services complaints, particularly regarding time-bar issues and awareness of potential conflicts of interest. This procedural unfairness invalidated the eligibility decisions, and consequently the investigation and determination reports and decisions based on them.

The court rejected the Appellant's request for the court itself to investigate and determine the complaints, explaining that the statutory scheme does not empower the court to do so. It also rejected the claim for damages against the Commission, noting the absence of statutory authority for such an award in the appeal process.

Given the procedural impropriety, the appropriate remedy was to allow the appeal, quash the impugned decisions, and remit all issues back to the Commission for a fair investigation and determination.

Holding and Implications

The court allowed the appeal on the ground of procedural unfairness. It quashed the eligibility decisions of 20 December 2017 and 21 June 2019, the investigation report of 27 July 2018, the determination report and determination decision of 10 October 2019. All twelve issues were remitted to the Commission for investigation and determination afresh.

The court found the Commission liable to the Appellant for the expenses of the appeal and the application for leave to appeal.

No broader precedent was established beyond the direct effect of ensuring procedural fairness in the Commission's complaint handling and clarifying the limited appellate role of the court under the 2007 Act.