In a decision handed down this morning, the High Court has found that a tax QC who had prepared opinions for the promoter of film finance tax schemes did not owe a duty of care to the investors in those schemes - and that even if he had owed a duty, the views he expressed in the opinions were not unreasonable: McClean & Others v Thornhill [2022] EWHC 457 (Ch).
The court accepted that the claimants had a credible starting point for an assumption of responsibility, because Mr Thornhill QC consented, unequivocally and in writing, to his opinions being shared with prospective investors. However, on proper analysis there was no assumption of responsibility: the prospective investors had been recommended to take (and all warranted that they had taken) their own advice; and in addition, they could only have gained access to the schemes through an IFA, and it was reasonable to expect that the IFAs would either have given or procured the necessary advice.
Herbert Smith Freehills Partner Will Glassey (whilst a partner at his previous firm Mayer Brown) acted for the successful defendant Andrew Thornhill QC. His full case note can be accessed here.
Key contacts
Disclaimer
The articles published on this website, current at the dates of publication set out above, are for reference purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action.