The High Court has refused an appeal by John O’Connell against a Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman determination concerning two life insurance policies that were encashed in 2016.
Mr Justice Tony O’Connor said the appellant had not established a serious and significant error in the Ombudsman’s decision. The court refused each of the reliefs sought in the appeal.
The original complaint was that the provider had wrongfully or unfairly cancelled the two policies in February 2016. The Ombudsman partially upheld the complaint in August 2019 and directed the provider to make six options available, including an option to reinstate cover if the complainants returned the full encashed value of €7,284.26. The Ombudsman also directed a €300 compensatory payment, with interest if it was not paid within 35 days after account details were nominated.
In his High Court appeal, Mr O’Connell raised issues including the absence of an oral hearing, alleged procedural and legal errors, and claims about the sale and suitability of a policy. The judge said several of those matters had not formed part of the original complaint to the Ombudsman. He also said the appellant had not explained what evidence an oral hearing would have produced that had not already been considered.
The judge found the appeal had not been properly formulated under the relevant court rules. He said the appellant had declined an opportunity to file a further affidavit to address that problem. The court also rejected the appeal on an alternative basis: even if it had been properly formulated, the appellant had not identified a qualifying error in the Ombudsman’s decision.
The judge noted that the appellant had received the full encashment value of the policies and had been unable to explain at the hearing what outcome he wanted that was not covered by one of the options made available under the Ombudsman’s determination. He said delay in the Ombudsman’s process and challenges to the constitutionality of legislation could not be addressed in this type of appeal.
The court did not determine costs. It directed Mr O’Connell to provide submissions within seven days on why costs should not follow the unsuccessful appeal. The Ombudsman was directed to file a written reply within seven days of receiving those submissions if it intended to pursue costs. The parties were also invited to address whether an oral hearing would be needed for any costs application.