Routes to financial redress against banks, investment advisers, insurers, mortgage advisers and product providers
By Susanne Muth
This is a wide field and the barristers of No5’s commercial and chancery group frequently advise and act for clients in their claims for professional negligence and breaches of the regulatory regime against their erstwhile professional financial advisers. What follows below are some pertinent and recurring themes encountered in this area of practice.
Investors seeking financial redress for losses suffered may have received advice from an independent financial adviser or a bank or may have bought an investment product directly from a product provider. If a recommendation was made or advice was given in relation to the investment product, the adviser will have come under a duty of care to give that advice with all the reasonable care and skill expected from a competent professional adviser (at the time the advice was given).
Experienced and sophisticated investors will mostly be locked out of relief because the court is likely to find that such an investor would have assumed the risk of incurring trading losses and, absent an express contractual duty, an advisory duty at common law will not be found: Springwell Navigation Corp v J P Morgan Chase. The decision at first instance in Springwell was confirmed in the Court of Appeal and has been followed in a number of first-instance decisions since. A further hurdle faced by the sophisticated investor is the courts’ willingness to uphold the ‘no representation’ and ‘no advice given’ disclaimers in the banks’ transactional documentation, which have the effect of excluding the possibility of any compensation claim for misrepresentation or for breach of an advisory duty: Peekay Intermark Ltd v ANZ Banking Group, Cassa di Risparmio della Republica di San Marino v Barclays Bank, Grant Estates Ltd v RBS (Scottish Court of Session)…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the No5 Chambers briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from No5 Chambers
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from No5 Chambers
An informative summary of private children case law for the Leicester & Leicestershire Family Justice Board.
The subject of Southwell v Blackburn was the correct application of the equitable remedy of proprietary estoppel within the context of a cohabiting couple.