McClean & Ors v Thornhill [2023] EWCA Civ 466 (28 April 2023)

McClean & Ors v Thornhill [2023] EWCA Civ 466 (28 April 2023)

Mr Thornhill did not owe a duty of care to the claimants as the IM and subscription agreements required investors to consult their own advisers and warranted reliance only on such advice. It was objectively reasonable for Mr Thornhill to assume independent advice would be taken. Even if a duty was owed, Mr...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Civ 466
Parties
Appellants/claimants: David McClean and Others; Respondent/defendant: Andrew Thornhill KC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (business & Property Courts) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Assumption of Responsibility, Negligent Advice, Tax Relief Schemes, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Causation, Limitation
Professional Negligence Tax Law Contract Law Duty of Care Assumption of Responsibility Negligent Advice Tax Relief Schemes Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David McClean and Others

Appellants/claimants

Andrew Thornhill KC

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (business & Property Courts) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Thornhill owed a duty of care to investors in the tax schemes
  2. 2 Whether Mr Thornhill breached any duty by giving negligent advice
  3. 3 Whether investors relied on Mr Thornhill's advice and suffered loss

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Thornhill did not owe a duty of care to the claimants as the IM and subscription agreements required investors to consult their own advisers and warranted reliance only on such advice. It was objectively reasonable for Mr Thornhill to assume independent advice would be taken. Even if a duty was owed, Mr Thornhill's advice was not negligent as it was consistent with the legal approach at the time. No causation was established as claimants would have invested regardless of risk warnings. Claims relating to SAD1 were time-barred; claims for SAD2 and SAD3 were not barred by limitation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claims against Mr Thornhill dismissed
  • No duty of care owed to claimants