Options UK Personal Pensions LLP v Financial Ombudsman Service Limited
[2024] EWCA Civ 541
Jonathan Armstrong v The Information Commissioner
7 September 2023
[2022] UKFTT 523 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone invested in a complicated financial product and later claimed they were misled. The court decided the investor understood the risks and the company hadn't done anything wrong.
Key Facts
- •A dispute arose between the claimant, Mr. David Murray, and the defendant, F&C Alternative Investments (UK) Limited, concerning the interpretation of a financial instrument known as a 'structured product'.
- •The structured product involved an investment in a fund linked to the performance of the FTSE 100 index.
- •The claimant argued that the defendant misrepresented the nature and risks of the investment.
- •The defendant contended that the claimant had received all the necessary information and understood the risks involved.
- •The case centred on the interpretation of specific clauses within the product's terms and conditions.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of contracts: The court's role is to ascertain the objective meaning of the contract language.
Contract law principles
Misrepresentation: A false statement of fact that induces another party to enter a contract.
Misrepresentation Act 1967
Duty of care: The duty owed by financial advisors to their clients.
Common law negligence principles
Outcomes
The court found in favour of the defendant.
The court held that the claimant had not established misrepresentation or negligence on the part of the defendant. The court interpreted the contract objectively and found that the terms were clear and unambiguous. The claimant was deemed to have understood the risks involved.