Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 NOVEMBER 2016

Private Banker's Duty Of Care

Fieldfisher
Fieldfisher
Contributor
Fieldfisher

Fieldfisher

Fieldfisher is a European law firm with market-leading practices in many of the world’s most...

View firm profile
Explore more from Fieldfisher

The case heralds a new approach by the courts to the traditional duty of care imposed on financial advisers when advising their clients (the "Bolam test")....

United KingdomLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The case heralds a new approach by the courts to the traditional duty of care imposed on financial advisers when advising their clients (the "Bolam test") and places more responsibility on a properly informed investor to accept the consequences of the investment risks voluntarily assumed by him or her.

The Facts

Mr and Mrs O'Hare were high net worth customers of Coutts and Mr Shore (who was their relationship manager at the relevant times) recommended the O'Hares to invest in certain Coutts products. The allegation was that Mr Shore persuaded the O'Hares to take a greater risk than they might otherwise have done and Coutts were negligent in advising them to make investments on the basis that they were unsuitable.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from