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

Is the grass always greener?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Issue: 7825 / Categories: Features , Commercial

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)

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Sponsored by

Click to know more

Sackers—Zak Ullah

Sackers—Zak Ullah

Sackers welcomes new associate

Christy Davies—Birmingham Law Society

Christy Davies—Birmingham Law Society

Ward Hadaway lawyer joins Birmingham Law Society Council

Ellisons—Stephanie Westwood & Anisa Khan

Ellisons—Stephanie Westwood & Anisa Khan

Ellisons expands Chelmsford commercial litigation team with two appointments

NEWS

NLJ this week: The hidden price of free software

Businesses incorporating open-source software into commercial products could face obligations to disclose valuable source code, with AI-assisted development making licensing risks harder to track

NLJ this week: When ignorance becomes dishonesty

Careless client checks do not automatically make a solicitor dishonest, but deliberately avoiding confirmation of suspected wrongdoing can cross the line

NLJ this week: Same fall, different claim

Construction workers injured in comparable accidents can face sharply different routes to compensation on opposite sides of the Atlantic

NLJ this week: Under pressure? Routes to redress

Victims of undue influence may have more options than simply unwinding a tainted transaction, with courts able to order profits accounts, compensation and, exceptionally, severance

NLJ this week: Liberty safeguards under strain

Disabled people could lose vital safeguards following the Supreme Court’s reversal of the Cheshire West test for deprivation of liberty, two barristers warn

back-to-top-scroll