Contributors
In May, we wrote about the High Court judgment in Adams v Options SIPP UK LLP which offered SIPP providers some comfort that, in circumstances where a loss is suffered by a member and the SIPP provider is acting on an execution only basis, they will not usually be liable for any loss suffered by the investor on investments made through the SIPP, including investments introduced to the member by unregulated providers.
The key issue in Mr Adams' claim centred around the nature and scope of the duties owed by the SIPP provider in relation to investments made through the SIPP. This is an important issue which frequently arises in claims against SIPP providers which have traditionally taken the view that they were the provider of the SIPP wrapper and not investment advisers or appraisers. Indeed, the Financial Ombudsman has previously upheld many complaints brought against SIPP providers in cases with similar facts. The High Court rejected Mr Adams' claim in full and Mr Adams has sought and been granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The appeal has been listed for 2 March 2021 and the outcome will be of significant interest to SIPP providers and their professional indemnity insurers.
