Introduction
The Irish High Court has recently reiterated that the doctrine of res judicata applies to legally binding decisions by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (“FSPO”) and precludes parties from re-litigating an adjudicated complaint before the courts.
In Pysz v New Ireland Assurance Company PLC [2026] IEHC 165, the High Court dismissed a claim alleging mis-selling of a personal retirement savings account (“PRSA”) product and negligence, holding that the proceedings were barred by res judicata due to a prior, binding determination by the FSPO.
The plaintiff had already unsuccessfully pursued the same mis-selling complaint before the FSPO. The Court confirmed that the Oireachtas intended FSPO decisions to be final and binding, subject only to a statutory appeal, and that unsuccessful complainants cannot circumvent this statutory scheme by issuing fresh court proceedings.
Background
In 2018, the plaintiff requested that the defendant transfer his PRSA to a Polish pension provider. While the defendant supplied the necessary transfer documentation and sought supporting information from the plaintiff, the transfer could not proceed due to delays and a lack of cooperation from the receiving provider.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant delayed processing the request and never intended to facilitate the transfer and he claimed that the PRSA was mis-sold.
FSPO complaint
The plaintiff complained to the FSPO in August 2019. In its legally binding decision the FSPO rejected the complaint, finding:
- the defendant’s information and documentation requests were reasonable (and in line with pensions legislation and Revenue rules);
- the defendant had endeavoured to facilitate the transfer and had updated the plaintiff on the process and difficulties encountered; and
- the cooperation of the Polish pension provider, which was outside the defendant’s control, was fundamental to the transfer.
The FSPO also noted the plaintiff had an existing policy relationship with the Polish pension provider and reasonably could have engaged with it directly.
No appeal to the High Court was brought under section 64 of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017 (as amended) (the “Act”), nor did the plaintiff seek an extension of time to bring an appeal.
Subsequent litigation
In 2023, the plaintiff commenced Circuit Court proceedings, advancing the same mis-selling allegations. These proceedings were dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
The plaintiff then pursued High Court proceedings repeating the claims previously adjudicated by the FSPO.
The High Court noted that section 62 of the Act provides that FSPO decisions are binding, subject only to an appeal. The High Court relied upon previous decisions of the Court of Appeal which had definitively confirmed as a matter of principle, statute, and authority that a claimant cannot advance a complaint to the FSPO and then issue fresh court proceedings on essentially the same grounds. The FSPO scheme was established by statute to provide for a simplified, expeditious, cost-free method of resolving disputes with financial service or pension providers. Those deciding to embark upon it, however, do so at the cost of being precluded from pursuing their claim through court proceedings. Allowing fresh proceedings on the same issues would undermine both the statutory scheme and the legislative intent.
The plaintiff asserted that the FSPO did not correctly understand his complaint, which it assumed related to the transfer procedure and not to a complaint of mis-selling, however the Court considered this was demonstrably incorrect. In addition, a claim for negligence in the plenary summons was not developed in any way and appeared to be essentially the same mis-selling complaint which was dealt with by the FSPO.
Accordingly, the High Court found that the doctrine of res judicata applied and the plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed as revealing no cause of action.
Comments
This decision provides additional clarity for financial service and pension providers. In essence, a complainant who is dissatisfied with a legally binding decision by the FSPO cannot have a second bite of the cherry and re-litigate the same issue through the courts. FSPO decisions are intended to be final, subject only to a timely statutory appeal.
Contact us
For more information, please contact Disputes and Investigations partners, April McClements, Aishlinn Gannon, senior associate Paula Shine, or your usual Matheson contact.