header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
24 January 2019 / Alison Padfield , Diarmuid Laffan
Issue: 7825 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Is the grass always greener?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

    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