‘No second bite’ after FSPO adjudications
Lawyers at Matheson say that a recent High Court ruling provides “additional clarity” for financial-services firms on decisions made by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (FSPO).
In the ruling, the court reiterated that the doctrine of res judicata applies to legally binding decisions by the FSPO and precludes parties from relitigating an adjudicated complaint before the courts.
In Pysz v New Ireland Assurance Company PLC, Ms Justice Emily Egan dismissed a claim alleging mis-selling of a personal retirement savings account (PRSA) product and negligence, holding that the proceedings were barred by res judicata due to a prior, binding determination by the FSPO.
No appeal under 2017 act
In a note on the firm’s website, the Matheson lawyers note that the plaintiff had already unsuccessfully pursued the same mis-selling complaint before the FSPO.
No appeal to the High Court was brought under section 64 of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017, nor did the plaintiff seek an extension of time to bring an appeal.
In 2023, the plaintiff began Circuit Court proceedings, advancing the same mis-selling allegations. The Circuit Court dismissed the proceedings on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
In this case, the High Court relied upon previous decisions of the Court of Appeal, which had definitively confirmed as a matter of principle, statute, and authority that a claimant cannot advance a complaint to the FSPO and then issue fresh court proceedings on essentially the same grounds.
Legislative intent
The Matheson lawyers say that the FSPO scheme was set up to a simplified, quick, cost-free method of resolving disputes with financial service or pension providers.
“Those deciding to embark upon it, however, do so at the cost of being precluded from pursuing their claim through court proceedings,” they state.
“Allowing fresh proceedings on the same issues would undermine both the statutory scheme and the legislative intent,” they add.
“In essence, a complainant who is dissatisfied with a legally binding decision by the FSPO cannot have a second bite of the cherry and re-litigate the same issue through the courts,” the Matheson lawyers conclude.