0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

provider liable for unauthorised investment advice on unsuitable product

9 August 2007

In Michael Walker v Inter-Alliance Group and Scottish Equitable (July 2007) the High Court ordered Scottish Equitable to pay damages provisionally assessed in the sum of £700,000 to an IFAs client, Michael Walker. The decision is welcome news for financial advisers and their professional indemnity insurers because it means that product providers cannot necessarily escape liability by hiding behind IFAs if their broker consultants wander into investment advice territory.

Mr Walker was entitled to a valuable inflation linked final salary pension. However, following meetings with his financial adviser and a representative from Scottish Equitable Plc, Mr Walker decided to transfer his benefits, to a Scottish Equitable Plc deferred phased retirement and draw down plan.

When the value of Mr Walkers pension plummeted, he realised he had been mis-advised and issued proceedings against his IFA and Scottish Equitable Plc. Mr Walker alleged that his IFA and the Scottish Equitable consultant both advised him to transfer out of his final salary scheme. Following Inter-Alliance entering administration, Mr Walker proceeded against Scottish Equitable alone.

The High Court accepted Mr Walkers evidence that his financial adviser and the representative from Scottish Equitable had both separately assured him that transferring out of the final salary scheme was the right thing for him to do. Having made that finding of fact, the Court determined that Scottish Equitable Plc provided Mr Walker with unauthorised investment advice.

This case indicates that where product providers broker consultants go beyond simply confirming facts and dealing with technical queries, the Courts will not hesitate to hold them liable for unsuitable investment advice, even where they are not authorised to do so and the client is also being advised by an IFA.

focus on...

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up