O'Connell v Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (2)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Tony O'Connor
• Judgment Date: 20 October 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IEHC 558
• Docket Number: [2019 289 M.C.A.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 20 October 2020

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 64 OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSION OMBUDSMAN ACT, 2017 AND IN THE MATTER OF A DETERMINATION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSION OMBUDSMAN MADE ON 14TH AUGUST, 2019 BEARING REFERENCE NUMBER 16/91486

BETWEEN

JOHN O'CONNELL

APPELLENT

AND

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

RESPONDENT

[2020] IEHC 558

Tony O'Connor

[2019 289 M.C.A.]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Tony O'Connor delivered on the 20th October, 2020

1 The applicant who represents himself applies for my recusal to hear this appeal. He submits that unrelated proceedings in which I delivered judgment on the 12 April 2018 O'Connell v. Building and Allied Trades Union & Ors [2018] IEHC 815, cause him an apprehension that I have made a personality judgment adverse to him during the course of those proceedings and in the judgment which I delivered. He did not cite any authority for his submission that I should rely on his own subjective apprehension that I would be unable to hear this appeal independent of that alleged personality judgment.

2 This application before the court was listed for hearing last July and was not reached. It was allocated with priority for today's non-jury judicial review list. Meenan J. who currently manages that list informed the parties earlier this morning (according to Mr. O'Connell and Mr, Kieran, counsel for the respondent) that he would leave it to me to determine the recusal application while indicating that no other judge is available to hear the application today.

3 Mr. O'Connell outlined the nature of his substantive application by way of appeal before the court. It is a statutory appeal from a determination by the respondent concerning a grievance or complaint by Mr. O'Connell relating to mortgage protection policies.

4 Mr. Kieran without contradiction from Mr. O'Connell submits that this is a statutory appeal which does not involve any credibility assessment by the judge hearing the appeal.

5 I cannot determine the extent of the substantive application at this stage. Although I have some recollection of the proceedings in which I delivered judgment on the 12 April 2018, I can assure Mr. O'Connell and the respondent that I do not have a view about Mr. O'Connell's personality, He pursued proceedings issued in 2002 and was successful in an appeal to the extent that the proceedings were remitted to the High Court for assessment of damages relating to the breach of his constitutional rights. That judgment of the Court of Appeal was in O'Connell v. Building and Allied Trade Union & Ors. 2016 IECA 338. He then represented himself before the me in 2018 and I awarded him €15,000 for general damages. Mr. O'Connell has indicated to this court that he has appealed some part of that judgment or something relating to that judgment. No further details of that appeal have been given to me at this stage.

6 The last sentence of para. 15 of the judgment delivered on the 12 April 2018 is brought to my attention particularly in this regard:

“To this end, the plaintiff has failed to satisfy this court as to his specific net loss and the court remains curious if not sceptical, about the claim for 2001 in particular, given the unemployment assistance of nearly €15,000 with some €24,000 in earnings from PAYE and self-employment block-laying services identified in the notice of assessment for the year ending 5 April 2001”

Mr. O'Connell's refers today to an interaction with me during the trial concerning his working with a possibility of claiming social welfare at the same...