Sorry Dr
You are either explaining yourself badly, or you do not understand how the Ombudsman works.
1) Each case is considered separately.
2) It is possible that in Case A) the Ombudsman ruled one way and in Case B) The Ombudsman ruled another even though the issue was the same because Padraic Kissane made a better argument in Case B)
3) It is also quite possible that the Ombudsman issued a preliminary decision against Padraic's client and Padraic got the Ombudsman to change the decision before issuing the Legally Binding Decision. The process is confidential so I doubt that Padraic would be able to tell us about this if it happened.
4) There have been cases where the Legally Binding Decisions have been nullified by the High Court. But I don't think that Padraic was involved in any of these.
5) There was one technical case in the High Court last year I think. The Ombudsman's final decision had a typo which was significant. To correct this, the Ombudsman had to go to the High Court to get it changed. Neither the institution nor the complainant objected to this.
6) But what you appear to be suggesting did not happen. The Ombudsman did not issue a legally binding decision and then "redo the case de novo. " because Padraic Kissane (or anyone else) disagreed with it.
Brendan