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

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll