The Adams v Carey court case has been given the green light for appeal by Lord justice Arnold.
Sipp provider Carey Pensions, now Options UK Personal Pensions, won the key judgement in May 2019, a ruling that set a “precedence” for the whole Sipp sector.
But judge Arnold claimed that the grounds of appeal submitted by Mr Adams had “a real prospect of success”.
The case will appear before the court in early 2021.
Adams v Carey examines the duties owed by Sipp operators who act on an ‘execution-only’ basis, and whether they should be responsible for the information provided by an introducer.
Response
STM acquired Carey Pensions and placed the operation in its Options segment.
Christine Hallett, Options UK managing director, told International Adviser: “From Options’ point of view, the decision to grant permission for the appeal is disappointing.
“The original judgement was detailed and well considered, so we strongly believe that it was the correct decision and will be upheld following the appeal”
‘Test case’
Tim Hampson, partner at law firm Wixted & Co Solicitors, which represents Mr Adams, said: “We always considered that the original judgment approached the case from all the wrong angles, placing too much emphasis on the ‘paper-trail’ of standard form documents produced by Options and not properly considering the primacy of the statutory framework.
“That framework has specially been put in place by parliament in order to protect consumers such as Mr Adams from the exact circumstances he found himself in.
“Mr Adams is naturally very pleased with the outcome of his application for permission to appeal, we now look forward to the court of appeal considering the case early next year and bringing some real clarity to the issues.”
Gerard McMeel, barrister at Quadrant Chambers, who is Mr Adams’ lead advocate, added: “Mr Adams’s claim was approached by the parties as a test case on the responsibilities of Sipp providers, who are responsible for looking after the pensions of many self-employed people.
“The Financial Conduct Authority as conduct of business regulator very properly intervened. The inordinate delay in producing the first instance judgment, together with the manifest issues with its reasoning, came a disappointment to any fair-minded observer of this branch of the financial services industry.
“The court of appeal now has the opportunity of determining what professional standards are required of those entrusted with pension assets, and what are the consequences for those Sipp providers who took the risk of dealing with unauthorised intermediaries.
“This is an important case for the courts’ traditional role in standard setting for professionals in the financial services sector and beyond.”
