Tweed v J & E Davy, (t/a Davy) [2021] NICA 43 (24 June 2021)

Tweed v J & E Davy, (t/a Davy) [2021] NICA 43 (24 June 2021)

The amendments to include breach of statutory duty (specifically under sections 21, 150, 238, and 241 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) and to clarify that the claim relates to the provision of investment advice and the promotion, marketing, and sale of a financial product arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim. Therefore, these amendments are permitted despite the expiry of the limitation period. However, the inclusion of a claim for 'the unlawful promotion, sale or marketing of a financial product' as a standalone cause of action is not permitted, as it does not constitute a recognised cause of action.

Citation
[2021] NICA 43
Parties
Appellants: Paul and Selena Tweed; Respondent: J & E Davy, T/A Davy
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
24 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Breach of Statutory Duty, Misrepresentation, Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Financial Product Mis Selling
Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort Law Financial Services Law Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul and Selena Tweed

Appellants

J & E Davy, T/A Davy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to amend the writ to include breach of statutory duty and claims relating to the promotion, marketing, and sale of a financial product after the limitation period.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments to include breach of statutory duty (specifically under sections 21, 150, 238, and 241 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) and to clarify that the claim relates to the provision of investment advice and the promotion, marketing, and sale of a financial product arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim. Therefore, these amendments are permitted despite the expiry of the limitation period. However, the inclusion of a claim for 'the unlawful promotion, sale or marketing of a financial product' as a standalone cause of action is not permitted, as it does not constitute a recognised cause of action.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Plaintiffs permitted to amend the writ to include breach of statutory duty (under specified sections of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) and to clarify the claim relates to the provision of investment advice and the promotion, marketing, and sale of a financial product.
  • Plaintiffs not permitted to include a standalone claim for 'the unlawful promotion, sale or marketing of a financial product'.