O'Hare & Ors v Coutts & Co

O'Hare & Ors v Coutts & Co

The court found that Coutts did not breach its duty of care or contract in recommending the investments; the O'Hares were sufficiently informed and able to take responsibility for their decisions. The settlement agreement was binding and for $250,000, but Coutts performed its obligation through discounts and credits. The claims in contract for the 2007-8 investments were time-barred, and no actionable breach was established in tort or under statute. The claim was dismissed in its entirety.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Les O'Hare; Claimant: Mrs Janet O'Hare; Defendant: Coutts & Co.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Contract, Breach of Statutory Duty, Misrepresentation, Suitability of Investment Advice, Settlement Agreements, Limitation of Actions
Banking Law Contract Law Tort Law Financial Services Regulation Negligence Breach of Contract Breach of Statutory Duty Misrepresentation +3 more

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Les O'Hare

Claimant

Mrs Janet O'Hare

Claimant

Coutts & Co.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Coutts negligently advised the O'Hares to make certain investments in 2007, 2008, and 2010
  2. 2 Whether the investments recommended were suitable for the O'Hares given their circumstances and risk appetite
  3. 3 Whether Coutts entered into a binding settlement agreement to credit the O'Hares with $250,000 and whether this was performed

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Coutts did not breach its duty of care or contract in recommending the investments; the O'Hares were sufficiently informed and able to take responsibility for their decisions. The settlement agreement was binding and for $250,000, but Coutts performed its obligation through discounts and credits. The claims in contract for the 2007-8 investments were time-barred, and no actionable breach was established in tort or under statute. The claim was dismissed in its entirety.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed in its entirety.