O'Hare & Ors v Coutts & Co [2016] EWHC 2224 (QB) (09 September 2016)

O'Hare & Ors v Coutts & Co [2016] EWHC 2224 (QB) (09 September 2016)

Coutts breached its duty of care and statutory duty by failing to adequately assess and explain the risk of the investments to the O'Hares, who were not as sophisticated as claimed. The advice given was unsuitable in light of their risk profile. The settlement agreement was not binding for £250,000 as alleged, and any obligation was satisfied by credits given. Some contract claims were time-barred, but tort claims were in time. The O'Hares did not fail to mitigate their losses.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2224
Parties
Claimants: Mr Les O'Hare & Mrs Janet O'Hare; Defendant: Coutts & Co.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 September 2016
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for breach of duty in relation to investment advice succeeds in part; claim for settlement agreement fails; some contract claims time-barred; tort claims succeed where in time.
Legal Topics
Professional Negligence, Investment Advice, Breach of Contract, Breach of Statutory Duty, Limitation of Actions, Hearsay Evidence, Suitability of Investments
Banking Law Contract Law Tort Law Financial Services Regulation Professional Negligence Investment Advice Breach of Contract Breach of Statutory Duty +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Les O'Hare & Mrs Janet O'Hare

Claimants

Coutts & Co.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Coutts breached its duty of care in advising the O'Hares on five investments in 2007, 2008, and 2010
  2. 2 Whether Coutts breached contractual and statutory duties under the Conduct of Business Sourcebook (COBS)
  3. 3 Whether there was a binding settlement agreement for £250,000 or $250,000 and if so, whether it was performed

Ratio Decidendi

Coutts breached its duty of care and statutory duty by failing to adequately assess and explain the risk of the investments to the O'Hares, who were not as sophisticated as claimed. The advice given was unsuitable in light of their risk profile. The settlement agreement was not binding for £250,000 as alleged, and any obligation was satisfied by credits given. Some contract claims were time-barred, but tort claims were in time. The O'Hares did not fail to mitigate their losses.

Court Disposition

Claim for breach of duty in relation to investment advice succeeds in part; claim for settlement agreement fails; some contract claims time-barred; tort claims succeed where in time.

Orders

  • Damages awarded to the O'Hares for losses caused by unsuitable investment advice, quantum to be assessed.
  • Claim for £250,000 under settlement agreement dismissed.