We discuss in this update the relevance of the decision to the wealth management market as a whole, including input from our professional indemnity insurance litigation colleagues who provide additional practical tips based on issues they have seen. We also refer back to our previous 'long read' article, from our annual review on the Carey case and the similar issues under appeal in the Avacade case.
In our view, this decision could affect any firm that deals with unregulated introducers – particularly, in 'execution only' or 'advice-lite' propositions. It is also a hammer blow to the 'execution only' SIPP market and the way parts of that market previously operated.
Frustratingly, there are still a number of highly relevant considerations which the Court did not address, whether by choice or because of the way the case was pleaded. We hope the Avacade appeal, which is due to be heard this summer, will cover these points.