header-logo header-logo

04 April 2014 / Adam Edwards
Issue: 7601 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Common sense prevails

web_edwards

FOS awards cannot be used as a springboard for litigation, says Adam Edwards

The Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s decision that the doctrine of merger does not apply to final decisions of the Final Ombudsman Service (FOS). This means that once claimants accept a FOS final determination, it is final and binding such that they cannot pursue civil proceedings for losses over and above the current £150,000 redress limit of FOS jurisdiction.

Complaint

Mr and Mrs Clark (the Clarks) originally raised a complaint through FOS against In Focus Asset Management & Tax Solutions Ltd (In Focus). It was alleged that In Focus had provided poor investment advice, which had caused the Clarks to suffer losses of over £500,000.

FOS upheld the Clarks’s complaint in January 2010. FOS awarded the maximum redress amount within its jurisdiction (£100,000 at that time, now increased to £150,000). In accordance with the statutory regime governing the FOS process, the decision was given as “final and binding” on the parties and FOS also made a recommendation that In Focus pay redress over and above the FOS redress

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll