CH-2024-000293 - [2025] EWHC 2980 (Ch)

Ground 1 involves assertions as to when Ms Y and Mr S knew, or ought reasonably to have known of acts or omissions that were the subject of their complaints or disputes as part of a challenge to the Ombudsman’s application of Regulation 5(2) and Regulation 5(3). However, I have been provided with no detail on the nature of those complaints or disputes in the appeal bundle and was referred only to the summary of those complaints or disputes contained in [2] and [3] of the Determination. I must therefore do the best I can based on those summaries.

Ms Pope-Williams confirmed that the appellants’ challenge under Ground 1 is confined to the four corners of Regulation 5. The appellants do not seek to make an argument like that advanced in Arjo Wiggins Limited v Ralph [2009] EWHC 3198 (Ch) (Arjo Wiggins) to the effect that the Limitation Act 1980 (the Limitation Act) precluded the Ombudsman from making the determination he did on the grounds that underlying complaints were statute-barred under the Limitation Act. The appellants do rely on Arjo Wiggins but only for the proposition at [22] of the judgment of Lewison J (as he then was) to the effect that:

… The words of regulation 5(2) are straightforward. They do not refer to awareness of the damage or of any other facts (unlike section 14A(6), (7) and (8) of the Limitation Act); they refer only to unawareness of the act or omission which is the subject of the complaint…