The High Court has rejected Independent Trustee Company Limited’s appeal against a Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman decision concerning a requested transfer of two personal retirement savings accounts (PRSAs). The court found that the ombudsman was entitled to handle the complaint under the financial-services provisions of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017, rather than the pension-provider provisions. It refused the relief sought.
The complaint arose after Dara Kavanagh asked in January 2019 to transfer the proceeds of his PRSAs to Zurich. Independent Trustee Company required him to complete a certificate of discharge. Kavanagh signed it but left it incomplete, arguing that it was not legally or contractually required and was not relevant to the transfer. The transfer did not proceed, and the complaint was not resolved through the company’s internal process.
In a final decision dated 5 May 2021, the ombudsman upheld the complaint under section 60 of the 2017 Act and directed the company to pay €2,000 compensation. The ombudsman considered the certificate requirement unreasonable because it was not set out in the PRSA terms of business. The company appealed under section 64, arguing that the complaint should have been determined under section 61, which applies to pension-provider complaints.
Justice Niamh Hyland found that the company met the statutory definitions of both a pension provider and a financial services provider at the relevant time. She held that where a complaint could fall within both categories, the Act allowed the ombudsman to choose the appropriate route. That choice must be guided by the nature of the complaint and be appropriate and proportionate.
The judge noted that the ombudsman had examined the PRSA terms, which did not require a certificate of discharge for a transfer. However, the particular dispute—whether the company could restrict a transfer because the certificate was incomplete—was not addressed by the scheme rules. The ombudsman’s conclusion that the complaint was not about the pension scheme was therefore not a serious mistake, the judge held. She also found no serious error in treating the complaint under section 60.
The appeal was refused. The judgment proposed a remote hearing on costs and final orders for 4 November 2022, with liberty for the parties to seek a different date.