David McClean & Ors. v Andrew Thornhill KC

David McClean & Ors. v Andrew Thornhill KC

It was not reasonable for investors, in light of the IM, subscription agreement, checklist, and the factual and regulatory context, to rely on Mr Thornhill’s advice without independent inquiry, nor was it reasonably foreseeable by Mr Thornhill that they would do so. Accordingly, no duty of care was owed by Mr Thornhill to the investors for his advice or IM approval.

Parties
Appellants/claimants: David McClean and Others; Respondent/defendant: Andrew Thornhill KC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligent Misstatement, Assumption of Responsibility, Tax Advice Liability, Unregulated Collective Investment Schemes
Professional Negligence Tort Law Financial Services Law Duty of Care Negligent Misstatement Assumption of Responsibility Tax Advice Liability Unregulated Collective Investment Schemes

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David McClean and Others

Appellants/claimants

Andrew Thornhill KC

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a barrister/tax adviser owed a duty of care to non-client investors for advice used in an investment scheme IM
  2. 2 Whether the advice given and IM approval breached the standard of care
  3. 3 Whether causation and reliance were established if a duty and breach existed

Ratio Decidendi

It was not reasonable for investors, in light of the IM, subscription agreement, checklist, and the factual and regulatory context, to rely on Mr Thornhill’s advice without independent inquiry, nor was it reasonably foreseeable by Mr Thornhill that they would do so. Accordingly, no duty of care was owed by Mr Thornhill to the investors for his advice or IM approval.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upheld; no duty of care owed by Mr Thornhill to investors; no order for assessment of loss.