Judicial review by pensions advisory firm of FOS decisions denied on basis of width of FOS’s statutory jurisdiction (R (Portal Financial Services LLP) v FOS)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What was the background?
• What did the court decide?
• Case details

Article summary

Pensions analysis: This decision concerned an application by a pensions advisory firm (‘Portal’) for permission to judicially review 27 individual decisions of the Financial Ombudsman Service (‘FOS’). The proposed claim concerned FOS’s approach to the scope of obligations on firms advising on pensions transfers and the potential liability in that forum of one regulated firm for the acts and omissions of another. Mr Justice Sweeting refused Portal permission to bring the judicial review claim on any of the grounds raised. In doing so, he relied in particular upon the width of FOS’s statutory ‘fair and reasonable’ jurisdiction and distinguished the Court of Appeal’s 2008 decision in R (Heather Moor & Edgecomb Ltd) v Financial Ombudsman Service. Written by Thomas Samuels, barrister, at Henderson Chambers.