The High Court extended Mark Little’s time to appeal a Financial Services Ombudsman decision rejecting his complaint about cover for a stolen trailer. The order gave him three weeks from 11 March 2011 to bring the appeal, unless the Ombudsman agreed to reconsider the matter instead.
The Ombudsman’s decision, issued on 20 April 2010, had rejected the insurance claim. The judgment says Little had proposed for car insurance with AXA Ireland Limited in 2004. In March 2008, he parked his trailer at Midland Machinery yard in Portlaoise. When he returned four days later, it was gone and was never found. AXA refused the claim, arguing the trailer was not in Little’s care, custody and control when it was stolen.
The policy wording quoted in the judgment said the trailer had to remain in the insured’s “care, custody or control”. The High Court judge said the Ombudsman analysed the clause as requiring all three conditions—“care, custody and control”—and focused on whether Little had control. The judge described this as a significant error in the reasoning.
Little’s appeal notice was issued on 19 October 2010, outside the usual 21-day period. He said he had instructed his solicitor to appeal soon after the Ombudsman’s decision, but was in France from 15 June to 14 October for work, had difficulty communicating, and faced financial problems. The judge said the financial explanation was not acceptable in this case and questioned whether communication from France would have been difficult. However, the judge considered the surrounding circumstances, including the apparent policy error and the absence of obvious prejudice to the Ombudsman or AXA.
The court did not decide the insurance appeal or find that AXA was liable. It exercised its discretion to extend the filing time in exceptional circumstances. The Ombudsman was directed to tell the court and Little within seven days whether she would agree to remittal for reconsideration. If not, the three-week extension would apply.
The judge refused Little’s application to introduce new evidence if the matter was remitted. If the case proceeded as a High Court appeal, the question of new evidence was left for that court to decide.