Beary v Pall Mall Investments (A Firm)

Beary v Pall Mall Investments (A Firm)

The appeal failed because the claimant did not prove that, if properly advised, he would have chosen an annuity over the drawdown arrangement. The judge was correct to apply conventional causation principles and to reject the application of Chester v Afshar to negligent financial advice. The judge was also justified in refusing to allow a late amendment regarding index-linked annuities and in limiting damages for the Lombard bond to the difference between actual loss and what would have been lost in the PMI fund.

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 other grounds refused.
Legal Topics
Negligent Financial Advice, Causation in Negligence, Damages Assessment, Duty to Advise on Alternatives
Professional Negligence Financial Services Law Negligent Financial Advice Causation in Negligence Damages Assessment 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 9 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 breached its duty of care in failing to advise on annuity options
  2. 2 Whether causation was established between the negligent advice and the claimant's loss
  3. 3 Whether the Chester v Afshar exception to causation applies to negligent financial advice

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the claimant did not prove that, if properly advised, he would have chosen an annuity over the drawdown arrangement. The judge was correct to apply conventional causation principles and to reject the application of Chester v Afshar to negligent financial advice. The judge was also justified in refusing to allow a late amendment regarding index-linked annuities and in limiting damages for the Lombard bond to the difference between actual loss and what would have been lost in the PMI fund.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal on other grounds refused.

Orders

  • Appeal on the two permitted grounds dismissed
  • Permission to appeal on remaining grounds refused