Jacobs v Sesame Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1410 (30 October 2014)

[Legal Beagles]

More...

[Amethyst]

Re: Jacobs v Sesame Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1410 (30 October 2014)

Well this is appropriate today considering http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/docum...sesame-limited :doggieyes:

1.1. For the reasons given in this notice, the Authority hereby imposes on Sesame a financial penalty of £1,598,000.

Judgment

This appeal raises the question whether the Respondent/Claimant, Mrs Jacobs, can take advantage of the provisions of s.14A of the Limitation Act 1980 in order to pursue a claim in negligence against the Appellant/Defendant which is otherwise time-barred. After a trial of that preliminary issue Deputy District Judge Webber sitting in the Bath County Court determined that she could. The Defendant appeals.

The Defendant is a "network" of financial advisors. A Mr Derek Pike was a member of the Defendant's network. In September 2005 Mr Pike advised Mrs Jacobs to invest in a Legal and General (L & G) Investment Bond. She invested £65,000 on 20 September 2005. In August 2008 Mrs Jacobs made a single withdrawal of £2,500 (inclusive of early surrender penalties totalling £180.64). Between October 2011 and February 2012 she withdrew £1,560 by way of monthly payments. Mrs Jacobs surrendered the Bond in February 2012. Its value was then £53,152.32. The loss asserted is £7,968.32, although there is also reference in the Particulars of Claim to loss of interest. In April 2012 Mrs Jacobs consulted solicitors, apparently in response to an advertisement in the press indicating that financial advisors could be pursued for compensation on a "no win no fee basis". Proceedings were issued in November 2012. Mrs Jacobs asserts that it was not until February 2012 that she knew either that she had suffered a loss or that she might have received inappropriate advice.

Mrs Jacobs contends that Mr Pike's advice was negligent and that the product was unsuitable for her requirements. The Defendant denies negligence but relevantly for present purposes asserts that Mrs Jacobs had sufficient knowledge to bring a claim in July 2009. By then she had received four annual statements in June 2006, 2007, 2008 and July 2009, the latter two of which showed a catastrophic fall in the value of the Bond. The June 2008 statement showed a fall in value of the Bond of £17,264.99, i.e. 21%, over the previous twelve months. The statement of July 2009 showed a fall in the value of the Bond of £18,052.12, i.e. 30%, over the previous twelve months. The value of the Bond in July 2009 was £43,653.