This is the only case I can find, where the High Court upheld an appeal by the complainant on a matter of substance. The High Court remitted the decision back to the Ombudsman to take into account matters he had not taken into account.
[broken link removed]
[FONT="]7.2 In determining the matter before this Court, it is abundantly clear that the function[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]of this Court is to decide whether the decision of the respondent was vitiated by a serious[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]error or a series of such errors. In carrying out this duty, this Court can only review the[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]decision of the respondent on the basis of the evidence that was submitted to him by the[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]appellant and the notice party. [/FONT][FONT="]It [/FONT][FONT="]is the view of this Court that, on the basis of the written[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]and oral submissions put before the Court, the appellant has established as a matter of[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]probability that, taking the adjudicative process as a whole, the decision reached was[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]vitiated by a serious and significant error or a series of such errors. [/FONT][FONT="]It [/FONT][FONT="]is this Court's view[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]that the respondent erred in failing to adequately consider the mitigating steps which the[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]appellant undertook in alerting his insurance brokers upon the reopening of its office on[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]Monday, the 21[/FONT][FONT="]st [/FONT][FONT="]April 2008. Furthermore the steps taken included the inspections[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]organised by the appellant following the incident that occurred on the [/FONT][FONT="]is" [/FONT][FONT="]April 2008 to[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]ensure that no further water ingress occurred. The respondent did consider the "Duty of[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]Assured Clause" [/FONT][FONT="]within the insurance policy and whilst expressly acknowledging that the[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]appellant was not required under that clause to appoint a surveyor the respondent[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]nonetheless concluded that the appellant had failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]his loss by not acting on the advice to engage a surveyor to produce a report until October[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]2008 which was six months after the claim and in this regard the appellant must take[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]responsibility for his failure to act expeditiously. This Court is of the view that the[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]respondent erred in failing to adequately consider the mitigating steps that the appellant[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]undertook and the fact that the "Duty of Assured Clause" did not require the appellant to[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]appoint an assessor but rather to "take such measures as may be reasonable for the[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]purpose of averting or minimising the loss which would be recoverable" [/FONT][FONT="]under his[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]insurance.[/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]7.3 [/FONT][FONT="]In light of the Court's finding in respect of this ground, it is unnecessary for this[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]Court to consider whether the respondent erred in failing to conduct an oral hearing on[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]foot of the conflict of evidence which arose from the documents before him in reaching[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]his decision.[/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]7.4 [/FONT][FONT="]This Court is required to consider the adjudicative process adopted by the[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]respondent as a whole to see if the decision made was vitiated by a serious and significant[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]error. This Court concludes that there is a sufficient basis made out by the appellant[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]which would merit intervention by this Court in respect of the decision made and in this[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]regard the Court will make an Order pursuant to s. 57CL (1) and s. 57 CM(1) and (2) of[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]the Central Bank Act 1942 (as inserted by s.16 of the Central Bank and Financial[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]Services Authority of Ireland Act 2004) remitting the decision of the respondent to the[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]respondent for further review.[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]