O'Donoghue v Office of The Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from two findings made by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman ("FSPO") on 8 December 2017 under Part VII B of the Central Bank Act 1942, as amended. The appellant lodged complaints in 2011 against two financial service providers, Company A (an insurance intermediary) and Company B (an insurance company). The FSPO initially issued findings in 2012, which were appealed to the High Court and remitted for further review. The complaints were re-adjudicated, including an oral hearing in April 2017 regarding Company A. The FSPO issued new findings in December 2017, partially upholding the appellant's complaints but rejecting the primary claim that the insurance policy was unlawfully voided. The appellant subsequently appealed these findings to the High Court. The appellant’s main contention is that the insurance policy was wrongly voided based on allegedly falsified documentation concerning occupancy details of an investment property insured under the policy.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the FSPO erred in finding that the insurance policy was correctly voided on grounds of misrepresentation related to occupancy of the insured property.
2. Whether the FSPO’s factual findings, including the credibility of the Proposal Form and the alleged alteration of the signed document, were erroneous or unsustainable.
3. The appropriate standard of review and test to be applied by the High Court on appeal from the FSPO’s findings.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant contends that he purchased insurance for a vacant property and that the premium paid reflects this.
• He asserts that the Proposal Form was falsified after he signed it, with inaccurate details about tenancy and occupancy added without his knowledge or consent.
• The appellant argues that Company A improperly altered the declaration he signed, adding false assertions that the property was tenanted and regularly occupied, which he denies.
• He claims the FSPO erred in rejecting his evidence regarding the falsification of documents and miscalculation of premium.

Respondents' Arguments

• The FSPO found that the Proposal Form was a standard, pre-populated document that could not have been printed blank or altered in the manner alleged by the appellant.
• Evidence was adduced demonstrating the technical impossibility of bypassing certain fields or altering key declarations on the form post-signature.
• The FSPO rejected the appellant’s claim that he contracted for insurance on a vacant property, finding the occupancy details material to underwriting and correctly relied on by Company B to void the policy.
• The respondents highlighted that no suitable insurance product was available on the market at the time for an unoccupied property, a fact accepted by the appellant.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized that the appeal primarily challenged the FSPO’s factual findings, particularly the credibility of the Proposal Form and the assertion that it had been altered after signature. The applicable test required the appellant to demonstrate a serious and significant error in the FSPO’s adjudication, given the FSPO’s specialist expertise and the deferential standard of review. The court found that the FSPO’s conclusions were supported by credible evidence, including testimony on the technical operation of the Proposal Form system, which made it impossible to produce a blank or altered form as alleged.

The court also noted the appellant’s concession that no insurance product was available for unoccupied properties at the time, undermining his argument that he had contracted for such coverage. The appellant’s reliance on the premium paid was insufficient to rebut the FSPO’s findings. The court concluded that the FSPO’s findings were neither clearly wrong nor unsustainable and that the appellant failed to meet the high threshold required to overturn those findings on appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against the two decisions of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman.

The direct consequence of this decision is that the FSPO’s findings, including the partial upholding of the appellant’s complaints against Company A and Company B but rejection of the claim that the policy was wrongly voided, remain in force. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling reinforces the deferential standard of appellate review applicable to FSPO decisions and confirms the importance of credible evidence supporting findings of fact in such appeals.