McHale v Dunlop & Anor [2024] EWHC 1174 (KB) (17 May 2024)

McHale v Dunlop & Anor [2024] EWHC 1174 (KB) (17 May 2024)

Mr Dunlop did not owe Mr McHale a duty of care in negligence as he was acting as an introducer, not as a financial adviser, and Mr McHale was an experienced investor who made independent decisions. No breach of fiduciary duty was established as Mr McHale was aware commission was payable and consented to it, even if not to the precise amount. The claims in negligence and for undisclosed commission both fail.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1174 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Nicholas Paul Shane McHale; First Defendant: Andrew John Dunlop; Second Defendant: Chetwode Limited (In Liquidation)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2024
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (king's Bench Division) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Fiduciary Duty, Undisclosed Commission, Financial Services Regulation, Investment Mis Selling
Tort Law Equity and Trusts Financial Regulation Professional Negligence Fiduciary Duty Undisclosed Commission Financial Services Regulation Investment Mis Selling

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Paul Shane McHale

Claimant

Andrew John Dunlop

First Defendant

Chetwode Limited (In Liquidation)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (king's Bench Division) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Dunlop owed Mr McHale a duty of care at common law to prevent economic loss
  2. 2 Scope of any such duty of care
  3. 3 Whether Mr Dunlop breached any such duty by recommending Dolphin Trust for commission

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Dunlop did not owe Mr McHale a duty of care in negligence as he was acting as an introducer, not as a financial adviser, and Mr McHale was an experienced investor who made independent decisions. No breach of fiduciary duty was established as Mr McHale was aware commission was payable and consented to it, even if not to the precise amount. The claims in negligence and for undisclosed commission both fail.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No relief granted to the Claimant against either Defendant
  • No order as to relief against Chetwode Limited, which was unrepresented and in liquidation