Summary
An investment adviser gives regulated investment advice when information is accompanied by a value judgment or selected so as to influence the client's decision. A request for a recommendation answered by naming a product is ordinarily advice unless there is an express disclaimer.
For a packaged product, suitability requires consideration of the client's needs, risks and alternatives. Describing a unit-linked fund as equivalent to cash and recommending it without examining a less risky fund breached the applicable Conduct of Business Rules and was negligent. However, damages still require causation and foreseeability. The exceptional run on the fund in 2008 was not foreseeable in 2005 and was too remote, so only nominal damages were recoverable.
Factual background
The claimant invested £1.25 million in the Enhanced Variable Rate Fund within the AIG Premier Access Bond after discussions with an HSBC financial adviser. The fund was presented as an alternative to deposit accounts and as carrying a risk similar to cash held with HSBC. Following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, withdrawals were suspended and the claimant suffered a substantial capital loss.
He alleged negligent advice, breach of contract and breaches of the regulatory Conduct of Business Rules. The central issues were whether the bank had provided advice rather than an execution-only service, whether the advice and regulatory breaches caused the loss, and whether the loss was foreseeable and recoverable.
Held
- Disposition. The claim for substantial damages was dismissed. The claimant was entitled to no more than nominal damages because the claimed loss was not caused by the negligent advice and was too remote.
- Advisory relationship. Whether a service is advisory or execution-only depends objectively on what was said and done in context. There is no default presumption of execution-only status where the parties have not used that expression. A client asking for a recommendation who is directed towards a particular product will ordinarily have received advice unless the adviser has clearly disclaimed responsibility. Advice may acquire contractual force when the client later enters the transaction in consequence of it, even if the fee was not agreed before the advice was given.
- Meaning of advice. Information becomes advice when accompanied by an opinion or value judgment about its relevance, or when selected through a value-laden process so as to influence the recipient. The court considered Martin v Britannia Life Limited (21/12/99 unrep.) and Walker v Inter-Alliance Group plc [2007] EWHC 1858, together with the FSA guidance, in formulating this approach.
- Breach. The bank gave advice, not merely information. The EVRF was not the most suitable packaged product for money requiring the minimum possible risk; the SVRF was more suitable. The adviser also wrongly described the EVRF as equivalent to a cash deposit and failed to examine the alternative funds. Those matters constituted negligence and breached COB 2.1.3R, COB 5.3.5(2) and COB 5.4.3R. The bank also breached the procedural requirements applicable to limited advice.
- Reliance, causation and remoteness. The claimant relied on the recommendation and would have invested in whatever the adviser recommended. A signed declaration that the literature had been read did not remove that reliance. The advisory duty extended beyond merely providing accurate information, but the loss resulted from the extraordinary financial crisis, the run on the fund and the collapse of the secondary market. Those events were outside the contemplation of the bank and a competent adviser in September 2005.
- Statutory claim and alternatives. Breaches of COB actionable under section 150 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 remained subject to causation, foreseeability and remoteness. If damages had been recoverable, the comparator would have been the investment the bank ought to have recommended. The claimant would not have been contributorily negligent, and the later ALICO payment would have been credited against damages.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
Available to signed-in members.
Appeal route
- This judgment [2011] EWHC 2304 (QB) High Court (Queen's Bench Division)
- Appealed to[2012] EWCA Civ 1184Outcomeappeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed
Key cases cited
17 authorities cited.
- Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd (BNP Mortgages Ltd v Goadsby & Harding Ltd, BNP Mortgages Ltd v Key Surveyors Nationwide Ltd, United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Prudential Property Services Ltd, South Australia Asset Management Corpn v York Montague Ltd) [1997] AC 191
- Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd (Feltrim Underwriting Agencies Ltd v Arbuthnott, Gooda Walker Ltd v Deeny, Hughes v Merrett Syndicates Ltd, Hallam-Eames v Merrett Syndicates Ltd, The Lloyd’s Litigation: the Merrett, Gooda Walker and Feltrim Cases) [1995] 2 AC 145
- C Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos (The Heron II) [1969] 1 AC 350
- Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465
- British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673
- Andrews v Waddingham & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 93
- PEEKAY INTERMARK LTD AND ANOTHER v AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD [2006] 2 Lloyd's Rep 511
- Bank Leumi (UK) Plc v Wachner [2011] EWHC 656 (Comm)
- Wilson & Anor v MF Global UK Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 138 (QB)
- Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund & Anor v Rouvroy & Anor [2009] EWHC 257 (Comm)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank & Ors v Springwell Navigation Corporation [2008] EWHC 1186 (Comm)
- Spreadex Ltd v Sekhon [2008] EWHC 1136 (Ch)
- Walker v Inter-Alliance Group plc [2007] EWHC 1858
- Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341
- NEEDLER FINANCIAL SERVICES v TABER [2002] Lloyd's Rep PN 32
- LOOSEMORE v FINANCIAL CONCEPTS (A FIRM) [2001] Lloyd's Rep PN 235
- Martin v Britannia Life Limited 21/12/99 unrep.
Sign in to see how the court treated each authority. A free account is enough.
Cases citing this case
11 later cases · 6 positive · 1 neutral · 3 caution · 1 negative
Most senior citing decisions:
- Adams v Options UK Personal Pensions LLP [2021] EWCA Civ 474 applied
- The Financial Conduct Authority v London Property Investments (UK) Limited (t/a LPI Emergency Property Finance) & Ors [2024] EWHC 1276 (Ch) explained
- Christopher Bernard Upham & Ors v HSBC UK Bank plc [2024] EWHC 849 (Comm) applied
- The Financial Conduct Authority v London Property Investments (UK) Limited (trading as LPI Emergency Property Finance) & Ors [2022] EWHC 2862 (Ch)
- Financial Conduct Authority v 24hr Trading Academy Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 648 (Ch)
- The Financial Conduct Authority v Avacade Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 1673 (Ch)
- London Executive Aviation Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2018] EWHC 74 (Ch)
- Marz Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc (includes Costs) [2017] EWHC 3618 (Ch)
- Abdullah & Ors Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 3016 (Comm)
- Thomas & Anor v Triodos Bank NV [2017] EWHC 314 (QB)
Sign in for the full treatment table, including the other 1 cases. A free account is enough.