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 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
    Sponsored by
    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
    Read All
    Legal notice: Notice under the Trustee Act 1925

    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
    Emergency lawyers on call as international regulatory actions soar
    Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
    NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
    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
    NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
    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
    NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
    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
    Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll