High Court dismisses a statutory appeal from a decision of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (FSPO) that an insurer had wrongfully refused cover for cracking in the walls of a dwelling house, where the roof trusses had been unable to adequately support the weight of a water tank, on the grounds that: (a) the decision could only be appealed if there were a serious error on the part of the FSPO or a series of such errors; and (b) the FSPO had adequate evidence that the failure of the roof trusses to support the water tank amounted to a structural defect.
Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman - statutory appeal brought by insurer - complaint concerning insurance policy provided by developer - cover against structural defects - pyrite damage - damage to structure of roof - deflecting trusses - whether roof trusses inherently defective - positioning of water tank - unintended load on trusses - decision of FSPO that it was unreasonable, unjust and improper for the insurer not to remediate the damage - whether FSPO guilty of serious and significant error - Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017 - contract of insurance - purchase of house in 2006 - damage evidence in 2010 - claim made in 2014 - whether structure of trusses was deficient - legislative framework - role of FSPO - appellate jurisdiction - whether the decision reached was vitiated by a serious and significant error or a series of such errors - whether FSPO's jurisdiction exceeded - whether decision supported by the evidence - compensation.