The High Court has dismissed an appeal by Jeremiah and Mary Coleman against a Financial Services Ombudsman finding that Allied Irish Banks was entitled to debit €9,418 from their account following a cash withdrawal in March 2013.
The Colemans argued that the Ombudsman should have held an oral hearing into their complaint. Mrs Coleman said she had visited the bank’s Ballincollig branch on 26 March 2013 to open an Advantage Account, which was available to customers over 65 without bank charges. She denied withdrawing cash. The bank’s records showed a €9,418 cash withdrawal that day, and a withdrawal form bearing her signature. She ultimately accepted that the signature was hers, while maintaining that she did not take the money.
The Ombudsman’s finding said the withdrawal was authorised and the debit correctly applied. It noted that the bank statements showed the withdrawal and that the Advantage Account was not opened until 17 April 2013. The Ombudsman rejected the complaint that the bank had wrongfully refused to refund the money. Neither party had requested an oral hearing.
In the High Court, the Colemans’ counsel submitted that a clear factual conflict required an oral hearing and that Mrs Coleman had not had an opportunity to answer the bank’s evidence or cross-examine its witnesses. The Ombudsman’s counsel argued that the High Court could intervene only if the decision-making process contained a serious and significant error.
Mr Justice Noonan said the Ombudsman had broad discretion over whether to hold an oral hearing. A disputed fact alone did not make a hearing necessary: it had to be likely to help resolve the dispute. Here, the bank relied on documents and a teller’s statement about her usual practice; she had no recollection of Mrs Coleman or the transaction. The judge said an oral hearing was unlikely to advance the evidence, as Mrs Coleman would repeat what she had already provided in writing and the teller could not recall the event.
The judge also said the Ombudsman could not determine whether bank staff had misappropriated the funds; such a matter would be for An Garda Síochána if a complaint were made. The court dismissed the appeal. It did not itself determine the underlying allegation of misappropriation.