header-logo header-logo

Financial Ombudsman acted irrationally

The High Court has handed down detailed guidance for the first time on the correct approach in law to the Financial Ombudsman’s powers to reopen complaints.

In R (Greg Moniak) v Financial Ombudsman Service [2023] EWHC 333 (Admin), the claimant was the victim of fraud, which resulted in his life savings being emptied from his bank account. The fraudsters were convicted and sentenced at the Old Bailey in 2018.

Moniak, unrepresented, brought a complaint to the Ombudsman against his bank, Barclays, for failing to act on alleged red flags. The Ombudsman rejected this, relying partly on a note provided by Barclays on sentencing remarks made by the judge. Moniak then obtained a transcript of the sentencing and summing up, which contradicted Barclays’ note. The Ombudsman also rejected this as not ‘material new evidence’.

However, Moniak, represented pro bono by James MacDonald KC of One Essex Court, succeeded at judicial review. Deputy High Court Judge Obi held the transcripts were material and the Ombudsman acted irrationally.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll