Carey argument
Carey argued the Fos decision should be thrown out for three reasons:
- The Fos awarded compensation in circumstances where a court would not have done so, and the Fos decision failed to acknowledge this and give reasons for holding the firm responsible where a court would not have done so.
- The Fos erred in finding that Carey owed duties to prospective members of its Sipp to carry out due diligence on introducers and the investments selected; and
- The Fos’s conclusions in relation to particular breaches of duty were unreasonable.
But the court rejected all three reasons and the judicial review was dismissed.
Addressing the first point, the judge ruled: "There is nothing irrational about the ombudsman's reliance on the matters he sets out. The complaints about the finding that Carey should have checked the FCA site rather than rely upon World Check do not come near to forming the basis for a public law challenge. It cannot be said that the ombudsman was not entitled to conclude that as a matter of guidance and best practice, Carey should have checked the FCA site in the circumstances of this case. Furthermore, it cannot be said that such a conclusion is irrational.
"Although there are differences between the matters relied upon by the ombudsman in relation to the store pod investments in the provisional decision and the decision itself [...], I do not consider this these are enough to render the conclusion irrational."
amy.austin@ft.com
