header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Is the grass always greener?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
24 January 2019 / Alison Padfield , Diarmuid Laffan
Issue: 7825 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Alison Padfield QC & Diarmuid Laffan analyse the obligations of SIPP providers
  • R (Berkeley Burke SIPP Administration Ltd) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd shows that SIPP providers cannot rely on disclaimers to avoid liability where unorthodox investments turn out to be a scam.


    • In a landmark decision on the regulatory obligations of self-invested personal pension (SIPP) providers, the High Court has approved a decision of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) requiring a SIPP provider to compensate its client for an unorthodox investment which turned out to be a scam. This was notwithstanding the fact that the SIPP provider, Berkeley Burke SIPP Administration Ltd (Berkeley Burke), acted for the client, a Mr Charlton, on an execution-only basis and, hence, that Berkeley Burke was under no obligation to assess and advise him on the ‘suitability’ of the investment in light of his personal circumstances.

    In R (Berkeley Burke SIPP Administration Ltd) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2018] EWHC 2878, [2018] All ER (D) 07 (Nov) the High Court rejected Berkeley Burke’s claim for judicial review

    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
    Sponsored by
    Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

    Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

    Partner joins family law team inLondon

    Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

    Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

    Private client division announces five new partners

    Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

    Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

    Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

    NEWS
    Read All
    NLJ this week: Motor commissions & fiduciary duties
    The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
    NLJ this week: The power of Interpol red notices
    Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
    NLJ this week: Approach with caution post-Mazur
    Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
    Philip Sales is selected as next Deputy President
    Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
    Tax shock ahead for partners?
    Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
    Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll