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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll