header-logo header-logo

Financial adviser victory

19 February 2014
Issue: 7595 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Complainants who accept FOS award cannot take case to court 

Financial advisers have triumphed in an eagerly awaited Court of Appeal case concerning Ombudsman’s awards.

Ruling unanimously in Clark v In Focus Asset Management & Tax Solutions Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 118, the court held that a complainant to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) who accepts an award may not take further proceedings in court to claim additional compensation over the same complaint.

The case had raised concerns that it could lead to open-ended financial claims being brought against financial advisers, which would send their professional indemnity insurance premiums skyward.

The Clarks received the maximum £100,000 award from the FOS over unwise investment advice that caused them to lose more than £300,000, and then issued proceedings against their financial adviser to recoup the balance of their loss.

The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision that the Clarks could seek additional redress through the courts. This contradicted an earlier ruling, Andrews v SBJ Benefit Consultants [2011] PNLR 577.

Sarah Naylor, partner, Hill Dickinson, says the decision is “welcome news for hard pressed financial advisers and their professional indemnity insurers”. 

“The carefully reasoned judgment of Lady Justice Arden reaches what I would suggest is the logical conclusion that if the Ombudsman’s decision is accepted, it is final and binding on both parties, and the complainant should not be entitled to a second bite of the cherry through the courts. 

“PI insurers who have been forced to review closed claims in view of the risk of them being re-opened following the first instance decision in Clark will be breathing a sigh of relief. It is to be hoped the decision will have a favourable impact on PI premiums, and the appetite for PI insurers to participate in what has been a challenging market.”

Adam Edwards, solicitor at Browne Jacobson, says: “Had the appeal not been allowed, FOS complaints could have been used to seek to build a litigation fighting fund.”

Issue: 7595 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll