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 Berkeley Burke’s claim for judicial review

    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
    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
    Read All
    NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
    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
    NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
    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’
    NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
    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
    NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
    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
    NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
    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
    Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll