Angela Lenderink-Woods v Zurich Assurance Ltd & Ors

Angela Lenderink-Woods v Zurich Assurance Ltd & Ors

Mr Davies was negligent in failing to consider the claimant's domicile, giving advice based on incorrect tax assumptions, recommending unnecessary and duplicative financial products, and misrepresenting charges. The advice caused loss by converting the claimant's portfolio into a less suitable structure with excessive charges. The claim was not barred by champerty or limitation. Damages were assessed at £223,000 for unnecessary charges and lost growth.

Parties
Claimant: Angela Lenderink-Woods; First Defendant: Zurich Assurance Limited; Second Defendant: Zurich Advice Network Limited; Third Defendant: Cherry Lenderink
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Negligent Financial Advice, Limitation of Actions, Champerty and Maintenance, Assessment of Damages, Domicile and Tax Planning
Professional Negligence Financial Services Law Tort Negligent Financial Advice Limitation of Actions Champerty and Maintenance Assessment of Damages Domicile and Tax Planning

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Lenderink-Woods

Claimant

Zurich Assurance Limited

First Defendant

Zurich Advice Network Limited

Second Defendant

Cherry Lenderink

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is barred by champerty or maintenance
  2. 2 Whether the claim is time-barred by limitation
  3. 3 Whether Mr Davies gave negligent financial advice or made negligent misstatements

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Davies was negligent in failing to consider the claimant's domicile, giving advice based on incorrect tax assumptions, recommending unnecessary and duplicative financial products, and misrepresenting charges. The advice caused loss by converting the claimant's portfolio into a less suitable structure with excessive charges. The claim was not barred by champerty or limitation. Damages were assessed at £223,000 for unnecessary charges and lost growth.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant for £223,000 in damages
  • No limitation or champerty bar to the claim