Widening the net: Emptage v FSCS
The Court of Appeal considered whether advice on an unregulated activity arising from a regulated activity was within the jurisdiction of the FSCS. It also considered the extent of the FSCS’s discretion determining whether, in the exercise of its discretion, it was entitled to exclude losses arising from an unregulated activity.
Mrs Emptage, the claimant, sought financial advice from her financial adviser about reducing her repayment mortgage of almost £40,000 on her home in Sandhurst. He advised her to re-mortgage with an interest-only mortgage of £112,000 and invest the balance in a Spanish apartment. Emptage followed that advice. Subsequently, the Spanish property market crashed and her investment turned out to be worthless. She was unable to repay the interest-only re-mortgage on her home. Her financial adviser was illiquid and uninsured, so the claim was dealt with by the FSCS.
The FSCS conceded that the advice was negligent and awarded compensation of £11,522 on the basis that it could only compensate for losses arising from the regulated re-mortgage on Emptage’s English property but not for losses arising from the Spanish investment (which was not regulated)…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mills & Reeve briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Mills & Reeve
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Mills & Reeve
The Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Mitchell v News Group, resolving recent uncertainty about the implementation of Jackson reforms — at least for the time being.
There is an implied term allowing a paying responding party under an adjudication award six years from the date of payment to challenge the adjudicator’s decision.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The trend for unbundling legal work is advancing through the law firm ranks but there is still resistance in some quarters - namely in-house. We asked why