Walsh v Greystone Financial Services Ltd

Walsh v Greystone Financial Services Ltd

All claims in deceit failed as the claimant did not prove that the defendant's agent made knowingly false or reckless representations regarding the risks of the tax mitigation schemes. All claims in negligence were statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, as there was no deliberate concealment or fraud to postpone limitation. Claims for losses arising from the HMRC enquiry and criminal proceedings failed because the claimant was found to have knowledge of and to have participated in the submission of false information to HMRC, precluding recovery.

Parties
Claimant: Vincent James Walsh; Defendant: Greystone Financial Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil (professional Negligence, Deceit) / Final Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed in its entirety.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Vicarious Liability, Breach of Duty, Deliberate Concealment, Tax Mitigation Schemes, Evidentiary Standards, Civil Evidence Act, Fiduciary Duty (not Pursued), Unlawful Means Conspiracy (not Pursued)
Professional Negligence Fraud/deceit Financial Services Law Tax Law Limitation of Actions Vicarious Liability Breach of Duty Deliberate Concealment +5 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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincent James Walsh

Claimant

Greystone Financial Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (professional Negligence, Deceit) / Final Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant (through its agent) gave negligent or deceitful advice regarding tax mitigation film partnership schemes.
  2. 2 Whether the claims are statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant (through its agent) deliberately concealed facts or committed deliberate breach of duty.

Ratio Decidendi

All claims in deceit failed as the claimant did not prove that the defendant's agent made knowingly false or reckless representations regarding the risks of the tax mitigation schemes. All claims in negligence were statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, as there was no deliberate concealment or fraud to postpone limitation. Claims for losses arising from the HMRC enquiry and criminal proceedings failed because the claimant was found to have knowledge of and to have participated in the submission of false information to HMRC, precluding recovery.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

  • Action dismissed; no relief granted to the claimant.
  • Costs to be determined (not specified in judgment).