Investment Research Expert Witness Ltd
The Investment Research Partnership
Past cases in which Mr Goodyer has acted as the Expert Witness where the judge has commented on aspects of his written reports or oral evidence.
1) 2015. Impey V Lloyds TSB (claim no. 3YL75604). Inappropriate use of the risk profile and fact find leading to unsuitable product and fund recommendations.
2) 2010. Mohan V HSBC Bank Plc (claim no. ORD 2009/5). Investment into With Profits funds where the adviser had failed to pre-
3) 2008. Chrysalis Limited V Clydesdale Bank Limited (claim no CA52/07 Outer House, Court of Session). Investment made by a limited company where there were two controlling directors. Only one director was made fully aware of the investment risk therefore the judge found in favour of the claimants.
Synopsis of a few of the cases Mr Goodyer as acted as Expert Witness either for the Claimant or Defendant.
1) Fact find not fit for purpose
In a widely reported case in September 2015, the Claimant, a retired widower, took Lloyds TSB to court after it was found that the fact find and risk questionnaire were not fit for purpose. Mr Goodyer analysed the Risk profile and found that the questions were misleading and inappropriate. This opinion was upheld by the case judge who agreed with Mr Goodyer and found in the favour of the Claimants. Full quantum claim was upheld by the judge. For more details click here.
2) Low risk, easy access required
Claimants had requested advice from their banks High Net Worth investment division to help invest £5m with short term, low risk investments as they were due to move overseas within 12 to 18 months. Instead of advising the claimants to invest in short term fixed deposit accounts, the bank placed them in asset backed securities claiming the investment to be as safe and easy to use as a deposit savings account. The investment not only fell in value but also locked away their investment money requiring the claimants to borrow unnecessarily and losing out on a number of investment opportunities. For more details click here.
3) Detailed quantum calculations
Help with multiple quantum calculations whereby trustees had mismanaged an inheritance for two minors. The calculations required a number of suitable alternative scenarios to be proposed which also included regular and multiple irregular single lump sum payments, taxation and fee charge adjustments. For more details click here.
4) IHT advice using investment bonds
Review of advice given to avoid Spanish inheritance tax using a high loan to value mortgage and an offshore bond investing in speculative investment funds. Mr Goodyer, initially asked to consider the suitability of the investment funds, recommended a widening of the claim to include the suitability of the IHT planning advice which the claimant’s legal advisers followed through with. The Spanish based, but UK registered advisers, were limited in their ability to pay out on the losses, so he suggested the lending bank was also brought into the claim with regard to the suitability of the mortgage knowing the supporting investment bond was high risk.
5) IHT using life assurance policies
A claimant held a suitable IHT protection policy, which on the advice of his adviser, was cancelled leaving the client’s family exposed to a potential £1m IHT liability if he died. Finding their error, the adviser hastily recommended a replacement policy which was more expensive, incurred a health premium rating due to a poor doctor’s report (the cancelled policy had no premium loading and could be added to at standard rates) and was designed for payment to cease at age 60. However, for a range of foreseeable reasons, the premiums had more than quadrupled by the 10 anniversary costing the claimant 3 times more than expected over the premium paying period. Mr Goodyer highlighted the liability issues and then proposed alternative quantum scenarios which required little in the way of additional life cover.
6) High risk loans linked to investment bonds
Defence case. Adviser had made a number of advisory recommendations on behalf of a client including loan backs for reinvestment purposes and the use of currency mortgages to reduce charges to a High Net Worth, highly experienced, high risk rated, investor client. The advice worked for a long period of time but due to a major switch in the Forex rate of the mortgage, the loan costs exceeded the loan repayments at a time when the investments were underperforming. The claimant stated that the losses were not explained and that the risk potential was not within their profile. Although Mr Goodyer was not able to fully support the defendant in the advice that was given, he was able to significantly reduce the quantum claimed from a figure in excess of £2m to under £200k.
7) SIPP advice
Defence case. Adviser had given a client longstanding advice with regard to a SIPP drawdown plan. Mr Goodyer was able to show that the advice given was suitable in all aspects of the claim and no negligence found. The claim settled out of court when the defendant’s lawyers used Mr Goodyer’s report to show that no negligence, and in turn liability, existed and put forward a Part 36 offer of £1000 which the claimants accepted.
For further details on quantum calculations please click here, email or telephone us.