header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
24 January 2019 / Alison Padfield , Diarmuid Laffan
Issue: 7825 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Is the grass always greener?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Alison Padfield QC & Diarmuid Laffan analyse the obligations of SIPP providers
  • R (Berkeley Burke SIPP Administration Ltd) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd shows that SIPP providers cannot rely on disclaimers to avoid liability where unorthodox investments turn out to be a scam.


    • In a landmark decision on the regulatory obligations of self-invested personal pension (SIPP) providers, the High Court has approved a decision of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) requiring a SIPP provider to compensate its client for an unorthodox investment which turned out to be a scam. This was notwithstanding the fact that the SIPP provider, Berkeley Burke SIPP Administration Ltd (Berkeley Burke), acted for the client, a Mr Charlton, on an execution-only basis and, hence, that Berkeley Burke was under no obligation to assess and advise him on the ‘suitability’ of the investment in light of his personal circumstances.

    In R (Berkeley Burke SIPP Administration Ltd) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2018] EWHC 2878, [2018] All ER (D) 07 (Nov) the High Court rejected

    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

    Read All
    Sponsored by
    WSP Solicitors—David Ashcroft & Jessica O’Shea

    WSP Solicitors—David Ashcroft & Jessica O’Shea

    Commercial property and child law teams expand with senior hires

    Duxton Hill Chambers—Lucas Bastin KC & Joshua Hiew

    Duxton Hill Chambers—Lucas Bastin KC & Joshua Hiew

    Set expands London and Singapore offering with senior international disputes hires

    Gilson Gray—Gregor Duthie & Stephen Forsyth

    Gilson Gray—Gregor Duthie & Stephen Forsyth

    Firm strengthens real estate and litigation teams with partner promotions

    NEWS
    Read All
    NLJ this week: Uber’s legal shield faces scrutiny on both sides of the Atlantic
    Uber has built a formidable strategy for insulating itself from liability for drivers’ conduct, but the legal terrain differs sharply between the US and England and Wales
    NLJ this week: Is it finally time to scrap Part III?
    The Civil Justice Council’s review of Part III of the Solicitors Act 1974 could mark the end of what one commentator calls an ‘outdated’ and overly technical regime governing solicitor-client fee disputes
    NLJ this week: Hereditary peers era finally comes to an end
    The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 marks a constitutional watershed by severing the centuries-old link between hereditary titles and automatic membership of the upper chamber
    NLJ this week: Courts tighten scrutiny of AI and public power
    Artificial intelligence, proportionality and public decision-making are under increasing judicial scrutiny, according to the latest public law round-up from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer
    NLJ this week: Why handshake property deals rarely survive court
    Families relying on informal agreements over property ownership could face costly consequences if disputes arise, the High Court has warned
    Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll