Malcomson, Application for Judicial Review [2026] NIKB 19 (29 April 2026)

Executive summary

The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland refused leave to apply for judicial review of a Financial Ombudsman Service decision concerning Dromara and Drumgooland Credit Union’s handling of a home-improvement loan application. The court accepted that the Ombudsman had approached the dispute under the statutory “fair and reasonable” test and had concluded that the applicant was not treated unfairly when the Credit Union offered a reduced amount and required a guarantor.

Key points

• Applicant: James Malcomson, acting as a litigant in person, challenged the Ombudsman’s 15 October 2025 decision.
• Proposed respondent: the Financial Ombudsman Service; the underlying dispute involved Dromara and Drumgooland Credit Union and a home improvement loan application.
• Holding: leave to apply for judicial review was sought against the Ombudsman’s decision; the judgment sets out the background and legal framework, including the Ombudsman’s duty to decide what is fair and reasonable.
• Reasoning highlighted: the Ombudsman found the Credit Union had not rejected the loan outright, had explained the lower offer, and had acted within its procedures in requesting a guarantor.
• The court’s analysis was framed by Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 section 228(2) and DISP 3.6.4, which require regard to relevant law, rules, and good industry practice.
• No sanctions, export-control, national security, or sovereign-risk issue is identified on the face of the judgment.

Why it matters

This is a financial-services judicial review decision, not a sanctions or export-control case, but it is relevant to enforcement and litigation strategy because it confirms the centrality of the Ombudsman’s “fair and reasonable” assessment in disputes over regulated lending decisions. For compliance teams, it underscores that documented reasoning, ownership checks, and guarantor requirements can be decisive in defending credit decisions.

Implications

For regulated firms, the practical lesson is to preserve clear records showing why a loan was limited, what information was requested, and how internal criteria were applied, because that evidential trail was central to the Ombudsman’s reasoning. For challengers, the case illustrates that judicial review will be difficult where the Ombudsman has engaged with the facts, applied the statutory test, and given a rational explanation grounded in the applicant’s own quotations, property ownership, and loan purpose.