header-logo header-logo

04 April 2014 / Adam Edwards
Issue: 7601 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Common sense prevails

web_edwards

FOS awards cannot be used as a springboard for litigation, says Adam Edwards

The Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s decision that the doctrine of merger does not apply to final decisions of the Final Ombudsman Service (FOS). This means that once claimants accept a FOS final determination, it is final and binding such that they cannot pursue civil proceedings for losses over and above the current £150,000 redress limit of FOS jurisdiction.

Complaint

Mr and Mrs Clark (the Clarks) originally raised a complaint through FOS against In Focus Asset Management & Tax Solutions Ltd (In Focus). It was alleged that In Focus had provided poor investment advice, which had caused the Clarks to suffer losses of over £500,000.

FOS upheld the Clarks’s complaint in January 2010. FOS awarded the maximum redress amount within its jurisdiction (£100,000 at that time, now increased to £150,000). In accordance with the statutory regime governing the FOS process, the decision was given as “final and binding” on the parties and FOS also made a recommendation that

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll