header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Is the grass always greener?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
24 January 2019 / Alison Padfield , Diarmuid Laffan
Issue: 7825 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

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
    Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

    Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

    Firm promotes London international arbitration specialist to partnership

    Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

    Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

    Firm bolsters restructuring practice with senior London hires

    HFW—Guy Marrison

    HFW—Guy Marrison

    Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

    NEWS
    Read All
    NLJ this week: The insider returns
    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
    NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
    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
    NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
    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
    NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
    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
    NLJ this week: How not to plead a schedule of loss
    A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
    Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll