Carney & Ors v NM Rothschild & Sons Ltd

Carney & Ors v NM Rothschild & Sons Ltd

The bank did not act as adviser nor make actionable misrepresentations; claimants had independent financial advisers and signed clear contractual terms negating advisory and representational liability. No unfair relationship arose under s140A Consumer Credit Act 1974. Contractual basis clauses were reasonable and not unfair. The scheme was not generally ineffective for inheritance tax mitigation, and no regulatory or suitability breach was established.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Carney; Claimant: Roberta Carney; Claimant: Brian Noel Fox; Claimant: Pamela Jean Fox; Defendant: NM Rothschild & Sons Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Financial Mis Selling Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Relationship, Advisory Duties, Misrepresentation, Basis Clauses, Investment Suitability, Inheritance Tax Mitigation
Consumer Credit Contract Law Misrepresentation Unfair Relationship Advisory Duties Basis Clauses Investment Suitability Inheritance Tax Mitigation

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

Parties

Michael Carney

Claimant

Roberta Carney

Claimant

Brian Noel Fox

Claimant

Pamela Jean Fox

Claimant

NM Rothschild & Sons Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Financial Mis Selling Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the relationship between the claimants and the bank was unfair under s140A/s140B Consumer Credit Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the bank gave negligent advice or made actionable misrepresentations
  3. 3 Whether contractual 'basis clauses' preclude liability for advice or misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The bank did not act as adviser nor make actionable misrepresentations; claimants had independent financial advisers and signed clear contractual terms negating advisory and representational liability. No unfair relationship arose under s140A Consumer Credit Act 1974. Contractual basis clauses were reasonable and not unfair. The scheme was not generally ineffective for inheritance tax mitigation, and no regulatory or suitability breach was established.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed