Beary v Pall Mall Investments (A Firm) [2005] EWCA Civ 415 (19 April 2005)

Beary v Pall Mall Investments (A Firm) [2005] EWCA Civ 415 (19 April 2005)

The appeal was dismissed because the claimant failed to prove that, if properly advised, he would have purchased an annuity rather than invested in the PMI fund. The court held that the Chester v Afshar principle does not apply to negligent financial advice cases and that conventional causation principles govern. The judge was entitled to refuse late amendments to the claimant's case and correctly limited damages for the Lombard bond to the difference between actual loss and what would have been lost if the funds had remained in the PMI fund.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 415
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Alan John Patrick Beary; Respondent/defendant: Pall Mall Investments (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal on additional grounds refused.
Legal Topics
Negligent Financial Advice, Causation in Negligence, Damages, Pension Advice, Duty to Advise on Alternatives
Professional Negligence Financial Services Law Negligent Financial Advice Causation in Negligence Damages Pension Advice Duty to Advise on Alternatives

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan John Patrick Beary

Appellant/claimant

Pall Mall Investments (a firm)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to advise the claimant on the possibility of purchasing an annuity instead of a drawdown arrangement
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was negligent in advising investment in the Lombard bond
  3. 3 Whether causation was established between the negligent advice and the claimant's loss

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the claimant failed to prove that, if properly advised, he would have purchased an annuity rather than invested in the PMI fund. The court held that the Chester v Afshar principle does not apply to negligent financial advice cases and that conventional causation principles govern. The judge was entitled to refuse late amendments to the claimant's case and correctly limited damages for the Lombard bond to the difference between actual loss and what would have been lost if the funds had remained in the PMI fund.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal on additional grounds refused.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed on grounds permitted by Carnwath LJ.
  • Permission to appeal on other grounds refused.