Paul Richard Hogan, R (on the application of) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd & Anor

Paul Richard Hogan, R (on the application of) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd & Anor

The application for permission for judicial review was refused because none of Mr Hogan's grounds demonstrated an arguable public law error in the FOS's application of the Materiality of New Evidence Exclusion. The new evidence was not material or likely to affect the outcome, and procedural fairness was observed.

Parties
Claimant: Paul Richard Hogan; First Defendant: Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd; Second Defendant: Financial Conduct Authority; Interested Party: Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission
Outcome
Permission for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Ombudsman Decisions, Pension Transfer Suitability, Materiality of New Evidence, Costs in Judicial Review
Administrative Law Financial Services Law Judicial Review Ombudsman Decisions Pension Transfer Suitability Materiality of New Evidence Costs in Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Richard Hogan

Claimant

Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd

First Defendant

Financial Conduct Authority

Second Defendant

Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Financial Ombudsman Service's 2022 decision unlawfully applied the Materiality of New Evidence Exclusion to dismiss the complaint without merits consideration
  2. 2 Whether new evidence was material and likely to affect the outcome
  3. 3 Whether the 2020 Quashing Order required merits reconsideration

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission for judicial review was refused because none of Mr Hogan's grounds demonstrated an arguable public law error in the FOS's application of the Materiality of New Evidence Exclusion. The new evidence was not material or likely to affect the outcome, and procedural fairness was observed.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application for permission for judicial review dismissed
  • Costs order in favour of FOS stands