Financial Services Complaints Limited v Chief Ombudsman

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA149/2021
[2022] NZCA 283

BETWEEN	FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPLAINTS LIMITED Appellant
AND	CHIEF OMBUDSMAN Respondent

Hearing:	9 February 2021
Court:	Cooper, Courtney and Goddard JJ
Counsel:	K I Murray and M J Leggat for Appellant M T Scholtens QC and D W Ballinger for Respondent
Judgment:	30 June 2022 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT (NO. 2) OF THE COURT
[Costs]

The appellant is entitled to costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

In our decision dated 15 June 2022 we allowed the appeal by Financial Services Complaints Limited.[1] However, we omitted to address the issue of costs.
[1]Financial Services Complaints Ltd v Chief Ombudsman [2022] NZCA 248.
At the conclusion of the hearing both parties indicated that costs should follow the event. The purpose of this judgment is to make an order for costs in the appellant’s favour for a standard appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements.

Solicitors:
Michael Leggat, Wellington for Appellant
Office of the Ombudsman, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Financial Services Complaints Limited, an organisation responsible for handling disputes in the financial sector, appealed against the decision of the Chief Ombudsman in a dispute concerning the handling of a complaint. The Chief Ombudsman had ruled in favour of a complainant in a case involving an alleged breach of consumer rights. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was tasked with reviewing the Chief Ombudsman's decision and determining whether it was legally sound. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Chief Ombudsman had correctly interpreted and applied the law in reaching the decision in question.

The Court of Appeal considered the arguments presented by both parties, with a focus on the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions and case law. The court examined whether the Chief Ombudsman had erred in his assessment of the evidence and whether he had properly applied the principles of natural justice and fairness. The court held that the Chief Ombudsman had indeed made an error in his interpretation of the law, leading to an incorrect decision. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the Chief Ombudsman's decision was set aside.

In light of the outcome of the appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered that Financial Services Complaints Limited be awarded costs for the standard appeal on a band A basis, with usual disbursements. This means that the losing party, the Chief Ombudsman, is responsible for paying the legal costs incurred by the appellant in pursuing the appeal. The court's decision underscores the importance of accurate legal interpretation and the adherence to principles of natural justice and fairness in the resolution of disputes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established