header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 April 2014 / Adam Edwards
Issue: 7601 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Common sense prevails

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
web_edwards

FOS awards cannot be used as a springboard for litigation, says Adam Edwards

The Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s decision that the doctrine of merger does not apply to final decisions of the Final Ombudsman Service (FOS). This means that once claimants accept a FOS final determination, it is final and binding such that they cannot pursue civil proceedings for losses over and above the current £150,000 redress limit of FOS jurisdiction.

Complaint

Mr and Mrs Clark (the Clarks) originally raised a complaint through FOS against In Focus Asset Management & Tax Solutions Ltd (In Focus). It was alleged that In Focus had provided poor investment advice, which had caused the Clarks to suffer losses of over £500,000.

FOS upheld the Clarks’s complaint in January 2010. FOS awarded the maximum redress amount within its jurisdiction (£100,000 at that time, now increased to £150,000). In accordance with the statutory regime governing the FOS process, the decision was given as “final and binding” on the parties and FOS also made a recommendation that

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
Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll