![McClean and others v Thornhill [2023] EWCA Civ 466](/media/5923/courts.png)
In its recent decision in McClean and others v Thornhill [2023] EWCA Civ 466, the Court of Appeal has found that a leading tax silk appointed to advise the promoters of a tax avoidance scheme did not owe a duty of care to investors in the scheme, even though they had been allowed to see the silk's advice.
Applying the principles set out in the Supreme Court's judgment in NRAM v Steel, the Court held that it was not objectively reasonable for the investors to rely on Mr Thornhill KC's advice as if it was advice given to them nor foreseeable that they would do so. The unregulated scheme had only been marketed to wealthy and sophisticated prospective investors who were able to access independent tax advice. The scheme's Information Memorandum stated that prospective investors should consult their own tax advisers and all investors had to warrant that they had relied on their own tax advice. The Court rejected as untenable the investors' (new on appeal) argument that a duty should be imposed by analogy with statutory liability for prospectuses, given that the scheme was unregulated.
You can read the full judgment below.
David McClean & Ors. v Andrew Thornhill KC - Find case law (nationalarchives.gov.uk)