header-logo header-logo

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

Financial adviser victory

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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll