QC Opinion & Duty of Care

[Fred Bloggs]

Only an idiot would be surprised by this.

Agreed. To the punters, the opinion was worth exactly what they paid for it. Nothing.

[wattaj]

...Thornhill owed no duty of care to the investors...

Only an idiot would be surprised by this.

[eazy]

Thornhill, a senior tax barrister with a massive history of advising on tax mitigation schemes, had been the adviser to Scotts, the promoters of a suite of film partnership schemes in 2003–2004. His advice to Scotts, which he permitted the promoter to share with any investors who asked for it, was that the schemes would offer investors the desired tax benefits, crucially on the grounds that the partnerships were trading on a commercial basis with a view to a profit.

The High Court judge ruled that Thornhill owed no duty of care to the investors, as it was clear that he was the tax adviser to Scotts, and potential investors were both advised and required to seek their own individual tax advice

Judgement : McClean & Ors v Thornhill [2023] EWCA Civ 466 (28 April 2023) (bailii.org)

Article : Thornhill escapes tax mitigation negligence claim | AccountingWEB