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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll