THE FINANCIAL Services Ombudsman says that the High Court judgment which quashed his ruling in a complaint by Enfield credit union against Davy stockbrokers will “slow down” the work of his office.
The ruling was welcomed by Davy, which said it was clear that fair procedures were not afforded to the firm in this case.
However, a scheme in which the broker will spend €35 million on a new investment product aimed at covering losses incurred by Enfield and more than 140 other credit unions on their investments in perpetual bonds will go ahead.
Ninety per cent of credit unions that took out the bonds are understood to have accepted the proposal.
Reserving his position on the possibility of a Supreme Court appeal to the judgment by Mr Justice Peter Charleton, ombudsman Joe Meade said yesterday he was bound to accept the judge’s ruling that some procedures in his office were not “up to scratch”.
Asked if he was disappointed at the ruling, he said all of his actions as a legislative officer were subject to court review and he was happy to accept rulings of the courts.
“He did find one or two problems with procedure – on the exchange of documents and the need for having an oral hearing -- and he has remitted the matter back to me,” he said of the judge’s ruling. “Naturally that will be taken account of by me.”
Mr Meade said he was pleased that the judge stated in the ruling that he had “carried out his function in good faith and with a high level of skill”. He was also pleased that the judge said his decision was careful, well-reasoned and conscientiously arrived at.
The judge set out 12 procedures that should be followed in a new investigation of the Enfield complaint by the ombudsman’s office.
“The procedures which he has indicated will have the effect of slowing down the process which I have in place,” Mr Meade added. “If I was to have oral hearings in every case and counsel to be present on both sides, it will have major implications, including costs.
Mr Meade said the ruling would also have implications for other offices including the office of the Pensions Ombudsman and the Equality Tribunal.
While Davy said in a statement on July 17th that Enfield credit union “will be withdrawing its complaint” from the Financial Services Ombudsman, Mr Meade said the credit union has not withdrawn its complaint.
Davy said it was a “firm advocate and supporter” of Mr Meade’s office and “reluctantly sought a judicial review because of serious concerns that, in this case, the Financial Services Ombudsman failed to follow due process and fair procedures to which Davy felt it was entitled”.
